i^W^T 


m 


'•""•.Hi 


.^^ 


m' 


-^^-w 


.•'SfeH^' 


^^'?D. 


f^4Q 


«■ 


AN  ESSAY 


CONTAINING 

OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE  POSITION  OF  A  PERSONAL  ASSU- 
RANCE OF  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN,  BY  A  DIRECT  COM- 
MUNICATION OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT: 


NOTES, 


OCCASIONED  BY  A  PAMPHLET  CONTAINING  REMARKS  ON 
THE  ESSAY,  UNDER  THE  NAME  OF  "  A  REPLY."   ' 


BY  Wm.  white,  D.  D. 

BISHOP  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,  IN  THE  COMMONWEALTH  OF 
PENNSTLVANIA. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PCBLISHED    BY   MOSES  THOMAS,    NO.    52,    CHESTNUT    STHEtTt 

Printed  at  the  Office  of  the  United  States'  Gazette. 

1817. 


PREFACE. 


■  THE  following  Essay,  which,  with  similar  docu- 
ments, was  penned  for  the  perusal  of  theological  stu- 
dents under  the  immediate  notice  of  the  author,  was 
published  some  months  ago,  in  a  periodical  work  enti- 
tled: **  The  Christian  Register,"  edited  in  New  York. 
The  Essay  has  been  lately  attacked,  in  a  pamphlet  un- 
der the  name  of  "A  Reply,"  edited  by  some  person 
who  signs  himself  J-  E.  Of  the  considerations  in  the 
Essay,  many  which  were  judged  to  have  a  weighty 
bearing  on  the  subject,  have  been  passed  over,  or  but 
slightly  noticed,  in  the  pamphlet.  Probably,  there 
would  have  been  thought  no  call  for  the  present  publi- 
cation, if  the  Reply  had  not  ascribed  to  the  Essay  some 
matters  not  expressed  in  it,  and  not  admitted  by  the 
author. 

This  property  of  the  pamphlet,  is  especially  remarka- 
ble in  its  disjoining  of  a  passage  in  the  Essay,  from  the 
place  which  it  occupies  immediately  before  the  first  ap- 
pendix; and  by  commenting  on  it,  as  if  it  were  a  part  of 
the  second  appendix.  In  consequence  of  this,  what  was 
said  indefinitely  of  some  facts  which  had  fallen  under 
the  immediate  notice  of  the  present  writer,  is  construed 
to  have  been  levelled  by  him  at  the  body  of  professing 
Christians,  to  which  J,  E.  announces  himself  to  belong. 


In  his  title  page,  he  had  contemplated  the  Essay  and 
its  appendices,  as  distinct  objects:  by  which,  besides 
the  propriety  of  the  thin,^,  he  had  pledged  himself  to 
bestow  on  each  object  its  appropriate  attention. 

Perhaps,  it  was  in  retaliation  for  this  elicited  occasion 
of  offence,  that  the  author  of  the  Reply  considered  him- 
self as  warranted  in  the  charge  found  in  the  beginning 
of  his  work,  of  the  want  of  ministerial  fidelity  in  the 
author  of  the  Essay;  and  of  the  consequences,  in  the 
religious  state  of  the  congregations  immediately  under 
his  pastoral  care:,  for  this  is  the  result  of  what  is  there 
said.  Perhaps  there  may  have  been  meditated  an  act  of 
Christian  charity,  in  the  caution  given  to  those  congre- 
gations against  their  pastor,  in  the  application  of  the 
scriptural  rule — "By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them." 
But  on  the  ground  of  his  ideas  of  decorum,  he  would 
consider  it  as  very  humiliating  in  any  minister  of  the 
gospel,  and  very  degrad'ng  to  his  flock,  ;|hould  he  regard  • 
such  a  call,  to  the  bringing  of  his  or  <if  their  concerns  , 
before  the  publick  eye.  The  author  of  .the  Reply  will 
hardly  endeavour  to  excuse  himself  from  tnis  personality, 
by  his  having  kept  out  of  sight  the  name  of  the  object 
of  his  attack.  He  was  too  pointedly  designated,  to  re- 
main unknown:  Or,  if  there  were  a  chance  of  this,  it  was 
prevented  by  advertisements  in  the  newspapers. 

Although,  in  the  above  \jistance,  the  conduct  of  the 
author  of  the  Reply  cannot  be  accounted  for,  from  what 


he  alleges  concerning  the  theological  obscurity  and  the 
unusual  phraseology  of  the  Essay;  yet,  the  author  of  the 
latter  ought  to  have  the  modesty  to  admit,  that  there  may 
be  in  this  respect  a  fault  escaping  his  own  penetration, 
and  to  the  correction  of  which  he  is  incompetent.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  he  should  suppose,  that  he  has  some- 
times written  with  perspicuity;  and  that,  in  his  opponent, 
there  has  not  been,  in  various  instances,  on  tliis  particu- 
lar question,  discernment  to  distinguish  between  two 
subjects  not  the  same;  the  sentiment,  it  is  to  be  hoped, 
although  the  decision  of  a  party  in  his  own  cause,  would 
not,  if  incorrect,  be  out  of  the  reach  of  the  plea  of  the 
infirmity  of  human  nature. 

On  every  such  occasion  as  the  present,  the  author 
has  made  it  an  object  to  avoid  the  language  of  incivility. 
In  the  opposite  performance,  some  expressions  wear 
such  an  aspect  to  his  mind,  as  to  confirm  him  in  his 
disrelish  of  such  writing.  If  he  has  strayed  from  his 
own  rule  in  any  instance,  it  will  be  an  inconsistency 
more  to  be  lamented  by  him,  than  any  of  which  there  is 
the  shadow  of  proof  in  the  Reply.  • 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


THE  author  wishes  to  acknowledge,  most  unequivo^ 
cally,  that  in  the  following  Essay,  as  edited  in  the  Chris- 
tian Register,  there  have  been  two  inaccurate  quota- 
tions; which  are  here  corrected  in  their  proper  places, 
not  without  notice  of  what  was  in  the  first  edition.  To 
the  best  of  his  judgment,  the  mistakes  make  no  differ- 
ence in  the  argument:  But  justice  to  two  authors  exacts 
the  present  acknowledgment* 

The  Essay  is  dated  July  25,  1814.  Not  long  after, 
it  was  sent  to  a  friend  in  New  York,  at  his  own  request. 
It  remained  in  his  hands,  until  late  in  the  year  1816; 
when,  at  the  desire  of  the  same  friend,  consent  was 
given  to  its  being  published.  The  au^ior  of  the  Reply  ^ 
supposes,  that  through  the  whole  intervening  time,  there 
w^s  an  opportunity  of  maturing  it.  The^pposition  w,as 
not  unnatural;  but  is  a  mistake. 


SOME  OBJECTIONS 


AGAINST    THE 


POSITION  OP  A  PERSONAL  ASSURANCE 

OF  THE 

FARLOJS'  OF  SIJV, 

BY  A  DIRECT  COMMUNICATION  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.* 

FOR  the  conveying  of  the  clearer  idea  of  the  errour 
objected  to,  it  may  be  proper  to  state  what  is  conceived 
to  be  scriptural  truth,  concerning  the  subject. 

When  it  is  considered  independently  on  personal  ap- 
plication, the  only  ground  of  it  is  in  the  revelation  made 
to  the  world  by  Jesus  Christ  and  h'is  Apostles.  It  is 
"  the  Gospel,"  as  contained  in  Holy  Scripture,  which  is 
"  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation:"  and  the  knowledge 
of  this  gospel  is  brought  to  us,  in  the  same  way  with 
that  of  any  other  subject:  for — "  faith  cometh  by  hear- 
ing, "i 

The  question  occurs — How  is  the  individual  to  be 
satisfied  of  his  interest  in  the  promises  of  this  gospel? 
The  correct  answer  is  here  conceived  to  be — By  a  cor- 
respoEfdency  of  the  state  of  his  mind,  which  is  a  subject 
of  consciousness;  with  the  requisitions  of  the  gospel, 
which  are  a  subject  of  revelation. 

For  further  elucidation,  the  sentiment  shall  be  given, 
as  expressed  more  at  large  by  Archbishop  Usher  in  his 

*  See  note  A.     t  See  note  B. 


8  Some  Objections  against  the  Position  of  a 

Body  of  Divinity.  He  asks  the  question — "  Is  it  not 
necessary  to  justification,  to  be  assured  that  my  sins  are 
pardoned,  and  that  I  am  justified?"  The  answer  is — 
"No,  that  is  no  act  of  faith  as  it  justifieth,  but  an  effect 
and  fruit  that  follovveth  after  justification:  for  no  man  is 
justified  by  believiwg  that  he  is  justified,  for  he  must  be 
justified,  before  he  can  believe  it:  and  no  man  is  pardon- 
ed by  beheving  that  he  is  pardoned,  for  he  must  first  be 
pardoned,  before  he  can  believe  it.  But  faith,  as  it  jus- 
tifieth, is  a  resting  on  Christ  to  obtain  pardon,  the  ac- 
knowledging him  to  be  their  only  Saviour,  and  the 
hanging  upon  him  for  salvation. 

"  It  is  the  direct  act  of  faith  that  justifieth,  that  where- 
by I  do  believe:  it  is  the  reflect  act  of  faith  that  assures; 
that  whereby  I  know  I  do  believe,  and  it  comes  by  way 
of  argumentation  thus: 

"  Major;  Whosoever  relieth  upon  Christ,  the  Saviour 
of  the  world,  for  justification  and  pardon,  the  word  of 
God  saith,  that  he,  by  so  doing,  is  actually  justified  and 
pardoned. 

*'  Minor;  But  I  do  rely  on  Christ  for  Justification  and 
pardon.  ^ 

'*  Conclusion;  Therefore,  I  undoubtedly  believe,  that* 
I  am  justified  and  pardoned."  ^ 

In  contrariety  to  the  test  laid  down  by  this  excellent 
person,  it  is  imagined,  that  there  must,  or  at  least  may 
be,  a  direct  and  personal  assurance  to  the  mind  of  every 
believer.  For  here  comes  into  view  a  difference  among 
the  advocates  of  the  position:  some  contending,  that  the 
assurance  spoken  of  is  of  the  essence  of  faith;  and  others 
going  no  further  than  to  say,  that  it  is  highly  desirable 
and  to  be  laboured  after.    The  whole  of  this  is  here  de- 


Personal  Assurance  of  the  Pardon  of  Sin.  9 

nied.  But  it  is  not  denied  to  be  a  fruit  of  the  Spirit,  in 
jjke  manner  with  the  other  fruits  associated  with  it  ia 
<j^\.  V.  22.  Tiiey  are  all  alike  produced  by  that  suasive 
and  insensible  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  which  we 
are  no  otherwise  conscious,  than  through  the  medium  of 
•the  gracious  habits  of  the  mind:  any  more  than  we  have 
a  knowledge  of  the  wind,  except  by  its  agency  in  nature. 
John  iii.  8.* 

There  is  no  degree  of  satisfaction  from  this  source,  to 
which  the  devout  mind  may  not  attain,  by  the  dint  of 
holy  endeavour  and  desire:  but  it  is  a  very  different  mat- 
ter, from  that  contended  for  on  the  other  side. 

In  relation  to  the  latter,  it  will  be  acknowledged  by 
the  advocates  of  it,  to  be,  if  true,  at  least  one  of  the  most 
important  points  in  the  Christian  Revelation:  and  this 
must  be  allowed  especially  by  those,  who  affirm  it  to  be 
an  attendant  on  all  true  conversion.  Such  persons,  if 
they  be  ministers  of  the  gospel,  can  never  sincerely  offer 
Christ  to  sinners,  without  advertising  them  of  so  indis- 
pensable an  evidence  to  be  looked  for.  They  cannot 
dwell  on  the  duty  of  self-examination,  without  insisting 
on  this  as  of  its  essence.  It  is  indeed  difficult  to  say,  on 
what  subject  they  can  pass  over  this  doctrine,  consist- 
ently with  fidelity.  And  most  of  all,  in  their  ministerial 
intercourses  with  the  sick  or  with  the  sorrowful,  it  cao 
hardly  be  kept  back  without  the  hazarding  of  their  sal- 
vation. 

On  the  property  of  the  opposite  theory,  that  in  addi- 
tion to  the  supposed  truth  of  the  position,  it  must  be  held 
to  the  last  degree  important,  will  very  much  depend  the 

*  Sec  note  C. 


10         Some  Objections  against  the  Position  of  a 

validity  of  the  objections  to  be  now  made  to  it,  which 
are  as  follow: 

1st;  W  hen  the  fore-runner  of  the  Messiah  "  preached 
the  bapti;m  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  not 
a  word  appears  to  countenance  the  sentiment  in  question. 
He  admonished  some  of  his  hearers,  to  manifest  the  sin- 
rerity  of  their  reptntance  by  its  fruits:  at  d  he  applied 
his  doctrine  to  various  descriptions  of  persons,  accord- 
ing to  their  respective  states  of  life.  Kow  happened  he 
to  pass  unnoticed  what  is  pleaded  for  as  the  most  decisive 
and  an  indisptnijable  evidence?* 

2dly ;  When  Christ  himself  "  began  to  preach,  and  to 
say,  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand,"  the  presumed 
accompanyment  of  all  sincere  repentance  was  unnoticed 
by  him.  There  is  not  the  least  suggestion  of  it  in  his 
parables,  nor  in  any  other  of  his  set  discourses;  among 
which,  that  on  the  Mount  may  especially  be  appealed  to. 
In  a  few  instances,  there  proceeded  from  his  lips  the  as- 
surance-—" Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee."  But  this,  far 
from  proving  the  tenet,  is  in  contrariety  to  it.  The  prin- 
ciple, that  no  more  causes  are  to  be  looked  for  than  arc 
sufficient  for  the  effect,  is  as  reasonablejn  the  department 
of  grace,  as  it  is  acknowledged  to  be  in  that  of  nature! 
The  inward  assurance  would  have  renderedthe  outward 
one  superfluous  f        •  ■• 

3dly;  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  there  are  many 
places,  wherein  slence  as  to  this  point  speaks  as  power- 
fully as  c  uld  have  been  done  by  any  words  in  contra- 
diction to  it.  We  may  take  the  interview  of  St.  Peter 
with  Cornelius,  or  of  St  Philip  with  the  Ethiopean  eu- 
nuch, or  of  St.  Paul  with  4he  jailor,  or  in  any  of  his  ad- 

*  See  note  D.     t  See  note  E. 


Personal  Assurance  of  the  Pardon  of  Sin,        11 

dresses  to  Jews  or  Gentiles:  an  i  tlie  advocate  of  the 
position  may  be  asked — What  he  would  think  of  a 
minister  of  the  gospel,  who  in  any  one  address  to  a  sin- 
3ier,  and  professing'  to  tell  him  what  he  must  do  to  be 
saved,  should  he  he  silent  as  to  the  inward  voice  in 
question?  The  wai^t  of  the  notice  of  it,  is  especially  con- 
spicuous it:  St.  Paul's  accouijt  of  his  own  conversion. 
No  inward  voice  announced  to  him  the  forgiveness  of 
his  sins;  in  aid  of  the  outward  voice  of  Ananias,  exhort- 
ing him  to  wash  them  avvav  in  baptism:  this  divinely  in- 
stituted sign  being  judged  by  that  holy  man,  to  be  evi. 
dence  sufficiently  satisfactory  of  the  in-.vard  grace  pro- 
mised to  accompany  it. 

4ihly;  In  regard  to  the  texts  alleged  out  of  the  epis- 
ties,  there  be  ing  very  few,  is  a  presumptive  circumstance 
against  the  construction  given  to  them  on  the  other  side-. 
What  would  the  advocates  of  the  opinion  think  of  one 
consenting  with  them  in  it;  and  yet,  in  his  address 
to  persons  of  different  descriptions,  so  limiting  lus  notice 
of  it,  as  would  be  proportionate  to  the  spaces  w  b.ich  his 
doctrine  is  supposed  to  occupy  in  the  sacred  records? 
Such  a  person,  would  consistently  be  considered  as  un- 
faithful in  his  ministry.  The  whole  of  the  present  argu- 
ment being  bottomed  on  defect  of  evidence  where  it 
must  be  expected  to  have  been  found,  the  examination 
of  the  texts  is  for  the  present  passed  by;  but  they  shall 
be  attended  to  in  an  appendix.  It  is  remarkable,  that 
almost  every  one  of  them  is  from  the  writings  of  St.  Paul. 
Now  this  is  the  apostle,  who,  being  called  by  his  especial 
designation  to  vindicate  the  rights  of  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians, was  necessarily  led,  in  giving  the  evidences  of 
their  vocation,  to  use  language  easily  drawn  aside  to  a 
subject  which  is  analagous,  but  not  the  same.   In  order 


1»2         Some  Objections  against  the  Position  of  a 

to  discern  his  meaning,  it  is  necessary  to  attend  to  llu: 
drift  of  his  argument,  and  to  the  peculiarity  of  his  style.* 
5thly;  The  advocates  of  the  ])osition,  would  do  well 
to  account  for  the  silence  of  the  aposde  on  the  subject. 
when  he  is  giving  directions  to  ministers  concerning 
their  official  duties.  To  pass  over  his  charge  to  the 
clergy  of  the  church  of  Ephesus,  and  his  instructions  in 
his  first  Epistle  to  Timothy;  it  will  be  especially  proper, 
to  attend  to  what  Titus  is  directed  to  say  to  the  people 
under  his  charge.  There  are  sundry  heads  of  instruction; 
and  doubtless,  some  of  them  have  respect  to  very  im- 
portant evidences  of  a  state  of  grace.  But  it  will  hardly 
be  alleged,  that  the  evidence  in  question  appears  to  have 
occurred  to  the  mind  of  the  apostle, f 

6thly;  Another  fact,  is  the  frequent  reference  in  scrip- 
ture to  tests,  which,  according  to  the  opposite  tenet,  are 
unnecessary.  On  this  ground,  every  charge  to  self- 
examination  might  have  been  spared:  and  so  might  every 
reference  to  the  fruits  of  righteousness,  as  evidences  of  a 
religious  state.  So  far  as  respects  the  manifesting  of 
real  piety  to  the  world,  there  might  ^till  be  reason  to 
refer  to  the  conduct,  as  descriptive  of^he  state  of  mind. 
But  this  would  be  known  to  the  party  himself,  indepen- 
dently on  the  graces  and  the  works  protkiced  by  it. 
Therefore  these,  however  important  in  themselves,  are 
unimportant  in  the  view  of  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  our 
state.  J 

7thly;  Although  scripture  is  the  only  test  of  divine 
truth;  yet  it  is  generally  acknowledged,  that  the  primitive 
faith  is  of  use  in  ascertaining  the  sense  of  scripture.  It 
would  seem  too  great  hardihood  to  affirm,  that  the  know- 
ledge of  the  most  essential  point  of  Christian  theology 
*  Sec  note  F.    t  See  note  G.    \  See  note  H. 


Personal  Assurance  of  the  Pardon  of  Shu       13 

was  buried  in  the  grave  of  the  last  of  the  apostles:  and 
yet  it  is  not  here  recollected,  that  a  sentence  or  a  scrap 
of  a  sentence  has  been  brought  from  any  of  the  early 
fathers;  in  favour  of  a  position,  held  to  be  all -important 
in  the  doctrine  of  grace.  In  particular,  why  does  it  not 
appear  in  the  apologies  of  Justin,  Tertullian,  and  others? 
These  were  considered  by  all  Christendom,  as  sufficient 
expositions  of  the  faith:  why  is  the  matter  in  question 
wanting?  They  knew  nothing  of  it,  either  as  Christian 
doctrine,  or  as  heresy.* 

8thly;  From  the  primitive  Church,  let  there  be  a  transi- 
tion  to  the  Prbtesta.it  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States:  not  as  evidence  of  divine  truth;  but  as  what  ought 
consistently  to  be  acknowledged,  by  those  who  call  them- 
selves its  members;  and  especially  by  its  ministers. 
It  will  not  be  pretended,  that  either  her  articles  or  her 
other  institutions  countenance  the  doctrine:  on  the 
contrary,  there  are  many  of  them  essentially  defective, 
on  the  supposition  of  the  correctness  of  it.    For  instance 

"  The  visitation  of  the  sick.'»  It  is  not  rash  to  affirm, 
that  on  the  said  supposition,  the  framers  of  this  service, 
and  especially  of  the  exhortation  in  it,  were  Christians 
in  name  only.  The  same  censure  applies  to  the  services 
for  baptism,  and  to  that  for  the  administration  of  the 
holy  communion.  None,  without  the  stamp  required, 
should  be  considered  as  a  proper  subject  of  the  latter 
ordinance,  nor  any  adult  of  the  former.  Or  rather,  none 
of  any  description;  because  baptism,  in  this  case,  ought 
not  to  be  administered  to  infants,  in  a  church,  which 
considers  the  outward  sign  as  testifying  the  subjects  of  it 
to  be — "  Members  of  Christ,  children  of  God,  and  inhe- 
ritors of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  "t 

•See  note  I.    t  See  note  K.. 


14       Some  Objections  agamst  the  Position  of  a 

9thly;  In  religious  books,  the  authors  of  which  arc 
wedded  to  this  tenet,  we  read  much  of  the  varying  state 
of  mind  in  the  same  persons,  as  to  their  assurance  of  a 
state  of  grace.  This  accords  with  what  we  know  of  the 
rising  and  the  falling  of  the  animal  spirits;  and  with  the 
effect  thereby  produced  on  the  views  which  men  take  of 
their  temporal  concerns,  and  of  whatever  is  interesting 
to  them  in  the  state  of  the  world:  but  it  ill  agrees  with 
the  confidence,  supposed  to  have  been  produced  by  a 
divine  communication,  and  yet  so  liable  to  be  shaken  by 
doubt.* 

lOthly;  The  vacillations  and  inconsistences  of  opinion 
which  have  attended  the  profession  of  the  doctrine,  arc 
fruitful  of  the  suspicion  of  its  unsoundness.  There  are 
none  who  have  laid  so  much  stress  on  it  as  the  Method- 
ists; whose  inconsistences  will  be  especially  considered 
in  an  appendix.  The  tenet  is  distinctly  taught  in  the 
institutions  of  Calvin.  But  in  the  words  of  one  of  his 
successours,  Turretine,  the  doctrine  is  reduced  to  the 
more  moderate  position,  that  the  assurance  in  question 
is  received  by  every  child  of  God,  some  short  time  at 
least  before  his  death.  The  professor  gfves  no  scriptural 
authority  for  this:  and  it  is  observable  of  all  who  depart* 
from  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  reqiiLsition,  that  they 
find  themselves  immediately  deserted  by  their'^xts.  even 
according  to  their  own  mistaken  interpretation  ofthem; 
and  are  obliged  to  open  the  door  more  or  less  wide, 
according  to  their  different  dispositions  to  indulgence, 
and  without  any  alleged  authorities  from  scripture. 

When  the  Westminster  Confession  was  framed,  the 
doctrine  had  become  so  far^pared  down  in  England,  that 
its  being  essential  to  a  state  of  grace  is  expressly  given 

,    *  See  note  L. 


Personal  Assurance  of  the  Pardon  of  Sin.        15 

up  in  the  ISth  chapter.  By  the  approved  writers  of 
the  churches  adhering  to  that  confession,  the  opinion  of 
the  necessity  of  the  test  has  been  generally  abandoned. 
A  {t\v  names  shall  be  mentioned.  Mr.  Baxter  (Practi- 
cal Works,  vol  i.  p.  876,  and  vol.  ii.  p.  875)  cautions 
his  readers  against  supposing,  that  assurance  can  be 
perfect  in  this  life.*  The  late  Dr.  Witherspoon,  in  his 
Discourse  on  Regeneration,  in  the  1st  volume  of  his 
works  (p.  175  and  176)  gives  us  the  point  as  an  essential 
of  a  state  of  grace. t     If  the  position  be  true,  there  is 

*  The  sentimeRts  of  Mr.  Baxter  on  the  present  point,  seem  to 
have  been  tor  some  time  unsettled;  but  at  last  to  have  been  fixed 
on  the  ground  taken  in  the  present  essay.  To  prove  this,  the  foU 
lowing  extract  is  given  from  his  "  Review  of  his  Religious  Opi- 
nions;" being  here  copied  from  the  Christian  Observer  for,  Au- 
gus;,  1807. 

"  Though  ihe  lolly  of  Fanalicks  templed  me  long  to  overlook  the 
strength  < i  tl;is  tcslsmony  of  the  Spiiit,  while  they  placed  it  in  a 
certain  internal  assGr'ion  or  enihusiastick  inspiration;  yet  I  now 
see  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  another  manner,  is  the  vi^itness  of 
CI. list,  aVid  his  agent  in  the  world.  The  Spiiit,  by  the  sanctification 
i:nd  consolation  assimilaiiog  the  soul  to  Christ,  is  the  continued 
witness  to  ail  tsue  believers." 

t  Dr.  Edwards,  in  iiis  Treatise  on  Religious  Aifeclions,  cites 
wiih  approbation  the  following  account  of  the  sense  of  •  a  former 
Divine;  whose  authority  he  often  introduces  as  of  great  weight  with 
the  churches  of  New  England. 

"  The  late  venerable  Stoddard,  in  his  younger  time,  falling  in 
with  the  opinion  of  some  others,  received  this  notion  of  the  witness 
of  the  Spirit,  by  «vay  of  imnr^ediate  suggestion;  but  in  the  latter  part 
of  his  life,  when  he  had  more  thoroughly  weighed  things,  and  had 
more  experience,  he  entirely  rejected  it;  as  appears  by  his  Treatise 
of  the  Nature  of  S.iving  Conversion,  p.  81."  Then  Dr.  E. 
quotes  from  Mr.  S.  as  follows.  «<  The  Spirit  of  God  does  not 
testify  to  particular  persons,  that  they  are  godly.     Some  think; 


16       Some  Objections  against  the  Position  of  a 

hardly  a  more  delusive  work  than  Dr.  Doddridge's 
"  Rise  and  Progress  of  Religion  in  the  Soul:"  the  naked- 
ness of  which  is  especially  apparent  in  the  13th  chapter. 
From  some  passages  of  this  Divine  in  his  Family  Expo- 
sitor, he  would  seem  to  acknowledge  there  being  such  a 

that  the  Spirit  of  Ged  tloth  testify  it  to  some;  and  they  grounrl  it 
on  Rom.  viii.  16.  The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit, 
that  we  are  the  children  of  God.  They  think  the  Spirit  reveals  it, 
by  giving  an  inward  testimony  to  it,  and  some  godly  men  think 
they  have  experience  of  it;  but  they  may  easily  mistake.  When 
the  Spirit  of  God  doth  eminently  stir  up  a  spirit  of  faith,  it  is  easy 
to  mistake  it  as  a  testimony.  And  that  is  not  the  meaning  of  Paul's 
words.  The  Spirit  reveals  things  to  us,  by  opening  our  eyes  to  see 
what  is  revealed  in  the  word.  The  Spirit  discovers  the  grace  of 
God  in  Christ,  and  thereby  draws  forth  special  actings  of  faith  and 
love,  which  are  evidential;  but  it  doth  not  work  in  way  of  testimony. 
If  God  does  but  help  us  to  receive  the  revelations  in  the  word,  we 
shall  have  comfort  enough  without  new  revelations." 

The  above,  and  the  extract  made  from  Mr.  Baxter  in  the  last 
preceding  note,  are  here  strongly  recommended  to  the  notice  of 
any  young  clergyman,  who  may  be  disposed  to  propose  the  question 
to  people,  whether  they  have  received  the  witness  of  the  Spirit. 
If,  like  those  eminent  men,  at  a  more  mature  period  of  life,  he 
should  discover  his  errour,  who  knows  how  many,1tj  the  meaatime, 
will  have  been  inspired  by  him  with  a  false  confidence? 

It  would  have  been  easy  to  have  muUiplied  extracts  to  the  same 
purpose  with  the  above,  from  the  Treatise  of  Mr.  Edwards  on  the 
Affections.  At  p.  258,  he  gives  an  explanation  of  Rorii^iii.  16, 
altogether  inconsistent  with  the  opinion  here  contradicted.  And  at 
p.  267,  he  speaks  of  it  as  follows — "  Many  have  been  the  mischiefs 
that  have  arisen  from  that  false  and  delusive  notion  of  the  witness 
of  the  Spirit,  that  it  is  a  kind  of  inward  voice,  suggestion,  or  decla- 
ration from  God  to  man,  that  he  is  beloved  of  him;  and  pardoned 
and  elected  or  the  like,  sometimes  with,  and  sometimes  without  a 
text  of  scripture;  and  many  have  been  the  false  and  vain,  though 
very  high  affections,  that  have  arisen  from  hence.  And  it  is  to  be 
eared,  that  multitudes  of  souls  have  been  eternally  undone  by  it." 


Personal  Assurance  of  the  Pardon  of  Sin.       17 

source  of  evidence  as  that  in  question,  but  gives  up  its 
being  essenti.'.l  to  a  religiouji  state.  The  true  course,  is 
to  abandon  it  altogether.  If  we  ;Ook  beyond  the  churches 
adhering  to  the  Westminster  Confession,  there  is  not 
here  known  to  be  a  vestige  of  the  position  in  any  of  them, 
with  the  exception  of  the  methodists.  Neitiier  the  Con- 
fession nor  the  Catechism  of  the  Church  of  the  Neiher- 
lands,  and  of  otiier  Calvinistick  churches,  savours  of  the 
doctrine.  It  is  unquestionably  wanting  in  the  Confession 
of  Augsburgh.* 

To  all  thdt  has  been  said,  there  will  be  objected  the 
experience  of  many,  who  testify  to  an  assurance  of  sal- 
vation received  in  the  manner  in  question.  Doubtless,  a 
man  cannot  be  surer  of  any  thing,  than  of  what  passes  in 
his  own  mind:  that  is,  of  its  passing  there,  without  its 
being  a  test  of  the  reality  of  the  object  to  which  it  corres- 
ponds. The  baptists  of  Munster,  about  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  and  the  5th  Monarchy  Men,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  professed  to  act  in  obe- 
dience to  divine  calls,  distinctly  perceived  by  them:  and 
their  respective  conduct,  however  atrocious,  plainly 
showed  that  their  belief  was  agreeable  to  their  profession. 
To  take  a  more  respectable  comparison:  there  have  been 
many  of  unquestionable  integrity,  who  have  been  con- 
fident of  divine  calls  to  go  from  England  to  America, 
and  fro'm  America  to  England,  to  preach  against  the 
sacraments  and  the  ministry  of  the  Christian  church,  and 
against  various  doctrines,  supposed  to  be  gospel  verity 
by  those  for  whom  this  essay  is  designed.  If  in  the  cases 
mentioned,  the  possession  of  feeling  is  not  in  itself  a  proof 

*  See  note  M. 
c 


18        Some  Objection^  against  the  Position  ofa 
of  the  source  from  which  it  is  supposed  to  come,  so  nei- 
ther in  the  other.* 

The  present  writer  has  had  occasion,  during  half  a 
century,  to  remark  the  effect  of  tlie  sentiment  objected 
to,  on  those  whose  religious  impressions  began  with  the 
belief,  that  it  is  a  matter  to  be  laboured  after  and  prayed 
for.     Some  of  them  have  settled  down  in  a  consistent 
profession  of  Christianity;  but  always,  so  far  as  is  here 
known,  in  silence  as  to  the  tenet  in  question,  if  not  in 
open,  disavowal  of  it.     Others  have  rejected,  together 
with  it,  all  regard  to  religion  in  any  shape;  which  they 
have  loaded  with  the  odium  of  their  former  temporary 
delusion.   A  third  sort  have  degenerated  into  the  cast  of 
character,  which  continues  the  language  of  enthusiasm 
without  its  sensibilities;  and  in  which  there  is  an  indul- 
gence of  those  passions,  which  the  most  conveniently 
admit  the  cover  of  a  religious  profession.     There  have 
been  also  persons  who  have  gone  on  through  life,  hank- 
ering after  an  assurance  which  they  do  not  affect  to  have 
received.     And  of  these,  some  have  been  perceived  to 
be  apparendy  devout,  without  the  consol^itions  uhere- 
with  religion  ought  to  be  attended;  while  others  have 
lived  either  in  indifference  or  open  sin,  still  hoping  that 
their  day  of  effectual  visitation  would  come,  and  not  a 
little  hindered  from  seeking  it  in  gracious  affecnoiis,  by 
the  errour  with  which  the  subject  had  been  incumbered. 
On  the  whole,  the  influence  of  the  opinion  is  here  judged 
to  be  pernicious.  If  it  have  been  permanently  entertain- 
ed by  any  truly  estimable  people,  the  same  has  happen- 
ed to  many  gross  corruptions  of  Christianity;  faith  in 
which  has  been  coincident  witfi  their  earliest  sensibility 
to  spiritual  subjects,  f 

*  See  note  N.     f  See  note  O. 


Personal  Assurance  of  the  Pardon  of  Sin.       19 

Here,  the  writer  of  this  will  attain  put  in  a  caution, 
against  his  being  understood  to  deny  the  possibility  of  a 
Christian's  knowing  that  he  is  within  the  terms  of  the 
gospel  covenant.  Faith  and  repentance  are  exercises  of 
the  mind,  and  subjects  of  consciousness;  and  the  assu- 
rances of  the  acceptance  of  them  in  the  gospel,  are  une- 
quivocal. There  may  be  counterfeit  appearances  of  these 
graces;  and  their  reality  must  be  known  by  their  effect 
of  a  godly,  a  righteous,  and  a  sober  life,  proceeding 
from  a  corresponding  bent  of  the  will  and  the  affections. 
The  knowledge  thus  obtained,  admits  of  degrees:  and 
this  accords  with  the  property  of  grace,  whereby  it  may 
be  continually  progressive.  Even  they  who  contend  for 
what  they  call  assurance,  are  so  incautious  as  to  talk  of 
its  degrees.  It  is  true,  that  on  the  ground  here  con- 
tended for,  satisfaction  must  be  interrupted  by  sin,  in 
act  or  in  affection:  but  according  to  the  other  theory,  it 
suffers  abatements,  and  from  csrusts  not  to  be  defined. 

The  uses  to  which  the  author  of  the  foregoing  discus- 
sion wishes  to  apply  it,  are  as  follow: 

If  it  should  meet  the  eye  of  a  clergyman  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church,  favourable  to  the  rejected  po- 
sition; he  is  affectionately  entreated,  to  consider  the  ob- 
jections which  have  been  opposed  to  it;  and,  next  to  the 
question  of  the  sense  of  scripture,  and  of  that  of  the  pri- 
mitive church,  to  weigh  well  the  circumstance  of  its 
being  unknown  in  the  institutions  of  his  communion, 
and  alien  from  their  spirit. 

If  it  should  be  presented  to  any  person,  conscious  of 
the  desire  of  being  assured  of  an  interest  in  Christ;  the 
author  approves  of  so  holy  a  thought:  and  he  advises 
that  the  object  be  sought,  not  immediately,  and  by  en- 


20       Some  Objections  against  the  Position,  ^c, 

deavours  to  excite  sensibilities  which  may  suggest  the 
idea  of  the  solicited  good,  on  insufficient  grounds;  but  by 
jealousy  of  sin  in  every  shap^',  and  by  a  good  life;  not 
consisting  in  a  varnish  of  the  exteriour  conduct,  but  as 
the  result  of  a  right  state  of  the  affeciions. 

If  there  should  be  a  reader,  who  relies  on  an  inward 
testimony,  supposed  to  have  been  formerly  given,  but 
now  suspended  by  a  state  of  sin;  he  is  here  cautioned 
against  a  delusion,  which  may  drown  him  in  perdition. 

Finally;  if  vhis  essay  should  be  read  by  any  one,  who 
believes  that  he  bus  received  assurance  in  the  way  in 
qu^-stion,  bur  adorns  the  doctrine  of  !)is  God  and  Saviour; 
let  him  cultivate,  raort-  and  more,  what  has  been  here 
contended  fnr  as  the  sure  ground  of  satisfaction,  when 
taken  in  connexion  with  the  corresponding  testimony  of 
scripture.  The  pious  Scou -al  (las  said,  that  he  had  rather 
have  the  evidence  of  re  i  ious  graces,  than  the  assurance 
of  an  Angel,  chat  Ms  na%ie  was  v.Tstten  in  the  Book  of 
Life.  It  is  here  Ivelieved,  that  the  more  this  species  of 
evidence  is  cherished,  the  greaier  will  be  the  indifference 
to  the  other.  But  should  the  errour  be  refined,  it  will 
be  barmlers  to  the  supp  e  1  par  y^  t*l:hough  it  may 
cause  him  unintentionally  to  mislead  gthers.* 

/w/z/25,  1814.  "         W^W. 

•  See  note  P. 


FIKST  APPE]^DIX: 

J*^xplaining  the  few   Texts,  alleged  i?i  Favour  of  the 
Position, 

THE  writer  of  this  may  possibly  have  met  with  texts, 
besides  those  to  be  here  considered.  If  such  should  oc- 
cur, it  is  trusted,  that  a  mere  inspection  of  them  will 
show  them  to  be  irrelative. 

Romans  viii.  16,  speaks  of  "  the  Spirit's  bearing  wit- 
ness with  our  spirit,  that  we  are  the  children  of  God." 
It  is  here  thought,  that  the  true  sense  of  this  passage 
cannot  better  be  given,  than  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Mac- 
knight,  a  very  respectable  Calvinist,  in  his  late  work  on 
the  epistles.  He  paraphrases  the  place  thus — '*  Also  the 
Spirit  itself,  bestowed  on  us  in  his  extraordinary  opera- 
tions, beareth  witness  with  the  filial  dispositions  of  our 
own  minds,  that  we  are  children  of  God."  That  there 
are  two  witnesses  spoken  of,  is  the  concurrent  sense  of 
able  commentators  (see  Doddridge  and  others)  and  if  so, 
its  relativeness  to  the  position  disappears. 

In  order  to  guard  against  this,  some  have  wished  to 
alter  the  translation  thus — "  to  our  spirits:"  on  which 
the  sflid  Dr.  Macknight  remarks  in  a  note — "This 
translauon  makes  no  alteration  in  the  sense;  provided, 
by  the  Spirit's  witness,  we  do  not  understand  a  particu- 
lar revelation  to  individuals;  but  the  common  witness 
which  the  Spirit  bears,  by  producing  filial  dispositions 
in  the  hearts  of  the  faithful." 

I'here  are,  however,  these  objections  to  the  change. 


22        Some  Objections  against  the  Fosition  of  a 

1st;  It  is  not  so  much  in  agreement  with  the  evident 
sentiment;  which  calls  for  two  witnesses. 

2d;  It  does  not  agree  with  the  usual  force  of  the  Greek 
preposition  "  c-yv"  joined  wid\  "  f*.»pTvpei:''  the  former  an- 
swering to  the  preposition  *'  cum"  in  Latin.  It  is  true, 
that  in  composition,  it  has  sometimes  only  the  effect  of 
additional  energy  to  the  verb:  but  as  Grotius  (quoted 
in  Pool's  Synopsis)  remarks,  it  will  scarcely  ever  be 
found  that,  with  the  compound  word,  there  is  not  a  con- 
junction of  testimony,  either  of  man  or  of  scripture.  To 
the  contrary  of  this,  Rev.  xxii.  18,  has  been  mentioned: 
but  Griesbach  amends  the  text,  by  leaving  out  the  pre- 
position; as,  in  his  opinion,  not  justified  by  the  manu- 
scripts. The  compound  verb  is  used  in  Rom.  ix.  1. 
But  the  apostle  there  appeals,  first  to  Christ,  as  having 
announced  the  rejection  of  the  Jewish  people;  and  then 
to  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost  within  himself,  of 
which  the  continual  heaviness  of  his  heart  was  an  adjunct. 
So  in  Rom.  ii.  15,  we  read  of  God's  bearing  of  witness 
in  the  works  of  the  visible  creation;  and  of  the  con- 
sciences of  men  consenting  therewith,  in  consures  or  in 
acquittals.  "^ 

3d;  The  present  translation,  and  not  the  other,  har- 
monizes wiih  the  design  of  the  apostle  in  the  Epig^e  to 
the  Romans;  which  was  to  prove  the  right  of  the  Gentile 
Christians  to  the  benefits  of  the  Christian  covenant. 
This  could  never  have  been  proved  by  a  testimony  to 
their  own  minds.  But  the  testimony  of  God  in  miracu- 
lous gifts,  bestowed  as  well  on  Gentiles  as  on  Jews;  and 
a  correspondency  with  this  in  aj^conformity  to  the  holy 
requisitions  of  the  gospel,  was  to  the  purpose;  which 
was  the  convincing  not  the  Gentile  converts  them- 


Personal  Assurance  of  the  Pardon  of  Sin.       23 

selves,  but  those  who  questioned  their  right  to  church- 
communion. 

2  Cor.  i  21,  22,  speaks  of  **  anointing'*  and  "  sealing:" 
which  still  refers  principally  to  the  extraordinary  opera- 
tions of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  we  further  discern  <'  the 
earnest  of  the  Spirit  in  our  hearts:"  for  the  explanation 
of  which  see  the  next  text. 

Eph.  i.  13  and  14.  Here  we  read  of  "  the  sealing  of 
the  Spirit  of  promise,"  and  of  its  being  "the  earnest  of 
our  inheritance."  The  Spirit  of  promise  is  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  his  gifts  begun  on  Pentecost.  By  these  the 
Ephcsians  had  been  sealed  as  a  church.  The  sealing 
took  place  after  they  believed:  which  shows,  that  it  was 
unconnected  with  any  matter  necessarily  attached  to  the 
forgiveness  of  sin.  The  sealing  by  a  miraculous  effusion 
might  well  be  considered  as  an  earnest  or  a  pledge  of  a 
future  inheritance  of  the  faithful  in  Heaven.  It  is  said  to 
be  "  in  our  hearts,"  because  of  its  holy  influence,  in  the 
elevating  of  affection  and  of  hope.  The  earnest  is 
addressed  to  the  heart;  but  is  given  by  the  Spirit, 
through  the  medium  of  the  wonderful  works  whereby 
Christianity  was  established.  (See  Doddridge  on  the 
Place.) 

2  Tim.  iv.  8,  St.  Paul  speaks  with  great  confidence 
of  the  treasure,  laid  up  for  him  in  heaven.  But  on  what 
is  this  confidence  grounded?  It  is  not  any  inward  voice 
or  feeling,  but  partly  on  the  retrospect  of  the  good  fight 
of  faith;  and  partly  on  the  near  prospect  of  his  "depar- 
ture," which  was  "at  hand." 

Heb.  vi.  11,  speaks  of  "the  full  assurance  of  hope." 
The  word  translated  "full  assurance,"  "  TrXr,pc(popi*;'  has 
two  senses  in  the  New  Testament — accomplishment, 


24        Some  Objections  against  the  Position  of  a 

and — conviction  of  the  understandiiig-.  The  latter  is  the 
meaning  in  this  place,  as  in  Rom.  xiv.  5.  2  Tim.  iv.  17. 
Col.  ii.  2.  and  1  Thes.  i.  5-  Dr.  Campbell,  in  his  note 
on  Luke  i.  1,  charges  Theodore  Beza  with  giving  a  pre- 
cedent to  Protestant  Churches,  of  drawing  the  word  from 
these  its  proper  significations,  to  the  denoting  of  a  mere 
persuasion  of  the  mind. 

V.  19.  Hope  is  called  "  an  anchor  to  the  soul,  sure 
and  steadfast."  In  the  original,  there  is  no  word  answer- 
ing to  hope,  which  is  therefore  printed  in  italicks.  But 
the  word  occurs  in  the  verse  immediately  preceding^ 
where  it  stands,  not  for  hope  in  the  mind,  but  for  tlie 
ground  of  hope  in  the  promises  of  God.  This  ground  is 
sure  and  steadfast. 

2  Pet.  i.  10.  We  are  here  exhorted  to  *'  use  all  dili- 
gence, to  make  our  calling  and  election  sure."  It  has  no- 
thing to  do  with  assurance  in  the  mind.  The  G  reek  word 
"  StC«;«v,"  signifies  "  steadfast"  or  "permanent,"  as  in 
Heb.  ii.  2,  and  elsewhere.  The  calling  and  election  of 
tlie  Hebrews  had  taken  place;  but  diligence,  was  neces- 
sary to  its  continuance.  ^ 

1  John  V.  10.  He  that  believeth  in  "t'Tie  Son  of  God, 
hath  the  witness  in  himself."  The  passage  is  generally 
quoted  under  the  erroneous  supposition,  that  '*  thju^it- 
ness"  is  a  person.  No  such  thing.  It  means  the  sante 
v/ith  ''testimony."  The  Greek  is  " i^otprvpixv."  It  is  the 
inward  testimony  of  the  graces  of  the  heart,  combining 
with  the  outward  testimony  to  which  the  apostle  had 
appealed  of"  the  Spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood."  But 
if  we  amend  the  text  from  some  (jf  the  most  respectable 
of  die  manuscripts  (see  Mills)  adding  after  "  f*«/>Tt/^/«v" — 
ry  ha  £v  nvTM  (for  ictvTu)  thc  propcr  rendtfring  will  be — 


Personal  Assurance  of  the  Pardon  of  Sin,        25 

hath  the  testimony  of  God  in  him:  that  is  in  the  Son 
proved  to  be  a  rea!  person  (the  subject  in  question)  by 
the  three  credentials  in  the  8th  verse — the  Spirit,  the 
Water,  and  the  Blood.  This  gives  peculiar  pertinency 
to  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  now  commented  on — "  He 
that  believeth  not  God" — meaning  in  that  his  testimony 
presented  to  the  senses — "  hath  made  him  a  liar,  be- 
cause he  believeth  not  the  record  that  God  gave  of  his 
Son  " 

Remark.  How  barren  of  proof  must  be  the  position 
in  question;  when,  on  a  point  so  very  important,  it  pro- 
duces texts  so  few  in  number;  and  so  easily  rescued 
from  perversion,  by  attention  to  the  contexts  and  a  due 
consideration  of  the  terms!* 

*  See  note  Q 


SECOND  APPENDIX. 

Of  the  Inconsistency  of  the  Methodists^  on  the  Subject.  * 

IT  was  sug:gested  under  the  10th  objection,  that  the 
controverted  position  has  not  been  taught  as  a  doctrine 
and  in  its  extent,  by  any  reUgious  society  except  the 
Methodists.  This  induces  the  present  writer,  as  a  tri- 
bute to  what  he  conceives  to  be  evangelical  truth,  to  no- 
tice their  inconsistency.  He  goes  on  the  subject  the  more 
readily;  because  it  is  the  very  point,  on  which  Mr. 
Wesley  broke  with  his  brethren  of  the  Church  of  Eng~ 
land.  It  is  slated  by  himself,  to  have  been  on  the  question 
of  inward  salvation,  now  attainable  by  faith:  but  it  must 
have  been  by  faith  as  defined  by  him,  and  as  essentially 
including,  or  rather  consisting  in  the  impression  here 
treated  of.  Cotemporancous  with  the  event  refeiTed  to, 
there  arc  so  many  sermons  in  print,  of  bishops,  and  of 
other  eminent  men  in  the  Church  of  England,  explicitly 
laying  down  not  onl}- the  doctrine  o!^  justification  by 
faith  alone,  but  by  this  as  working  by- love,  the  principle 
of  all  inward  and  outward  obedience;  that  there^a^  be 
no  room  for  the  supposition,  of  Mr.  Wesley's  having 
been  ejected  from  English  churches  on  that  account. 
He  preached  a  familiar  doctrine;  but  there  may  have  been 
novelty  in  the  terms  in  which  he  clothed  it.f 

In  his  Appeal  (p.  33)  he  declares,  that  he  and  his 
brother  had  been  Pharisees,  fropi  the  beginning  of  their 

*  See  note  R.     f  See  note  S. 


Personal  Assurance  of  the  Pardon  of  Sin.        27 

ministry  in  1729,  to  the  year  1737.  They  were  then 
avvakened  by  a  preacher  of  the  Church  of  the  "  Unitas 
Frairum,"  of  the  name  of  Peter  Bohler.  It  is  evident 
from  the  narrative,  that  they  wanted  what  was  considered 
by  him  and  by  themselves,  as  the  assurance  of  faith. 
And  yet  it  is  remarkable,  that  in  a  subsequent  conver- 
sation with  Count  Zinzendorf,  the  leader  of  that  people, 
he  gave  to  Mr.  W'esley  a  directly  contrary  decision  on 
the  point.  This  is  related  in  Dr.  Wliitehead's  Life  of 
Mr.  Wesley,  vol.  ii.  p.  82. 

Mr.  Wesley's  conversion,  was  considered  by  him  as 
having  taken  place  on  the  24th  of  May,  1738  (White- 
head, vol.  ii.  p.  79)  when,  he  says,  an  assurance  was 
given  him  by  Christ,  that  he  had  taken  away  his  sins. 

In  the  account  of  the  conference  in  1767,  it  is  deci- 
ded by  the  body — "  That  all  Christians  have  such  fait^ 
as  implies  an  assurance  of  God's  love,  appears  from," 
&c. — citing  some  texts.  And  it  is  expressly  said — "  No 
man  can  be  justified  and  not  know  it."  (Whitehead,  vol. 
ii.  p.  215.) 

Many  things  to  the  same  effect,  may  be  found  in  Mr. 
Wesley's  Appeal:  but  the  reverse  now  follows. 

According  to  Dr.  Whitehead,  between  the  years 
1745  and  1747,  there  took  place  a  correspondence  be- 
tween Mr.  Wesley  and  a  person  under  the  assumed 
name  of  John  Smith,  who  is  said  to  have  been  *'  a  cler- 
gyman of  considerable  abilities,  and  probably  of  high 
authority,  if  not  the  highest  in  the  church."  The  his- 
torian supposes,  that  this  correspondence  had  some* 
influence  on  Mr.  Wesley's  mind;  and  that  it  occasioned 

*  In  the  former  Edition,  the  word  was  "great." 


28        Some  Objections  against  the  Position  of  a 

a  letter  to  his  brother  given  at  large,  in  which,  on  the 
present  subject,  he  says — "  I  allow,  1st,  that  there  is 
such  an  explicit  assurance:  2dly,  that  it  is  the  common 
privilege  of  Christians:  and  3dly,^  that  it  is  the  proper 
Christiaii  faith,  which  purifieth  the  heart  and  overcometh 
the  world:  but  I  cannot  allow,  that  justifying  faith  is 
such  an  assurance,  or  necessarily  connected  therewith.'* 
And  he  goes  on  to  give  his  reasons.* 

That  during  Mr.  Wesley's  life,  the  Methodist  sys- 
tem became  less  tenacious  on  the  point,  the  present 
writer  thinks  he  could  clearly  show  from  sundry  mat- 
ters in  *'  A  Vindication  of  the  Minutes,"  by  Mr. 
Fietciier — -a  book  approved  of  by  Mr.  Wesley,  and 
much  extolled  by  his  Society rj-  But  it  is  rather  thought 
proper  to  adduce  authority  from  a  more  recent  account 
of  their  principles,  in  "  A  Portraiture  of  Methodism," 
by  Jonathan  Crowther.  He  lays  it  down  as  a  tenet 
.  of  the  Society;  but  adds  as  their  opinion— "  There 
may  be  exceptions  in  some  extraordinary  cases,  occa- 
sioned by  extreme  ignorance,  the  influence  of  bodily 
complaints,  ©r  the  violence  of  temptatioi^"  That  each 
of  these  causes  may  have  powerful  e^Pects  on  the  exer- 
cises of  the  human  mind,  and  especially  such  of  them  as 
are  influenced  by  changes  in  the  sfate  of  the  animal 
spirits,  is  obvious.  But  that  they  can  be  im|Miiments 
to  the  voice  of  God  speaking  to  oiir  spirits,  ought  not 
to  be  ad  Hi  i  I  ted.  1 

•  See  note  T. 
t    Mr.  Fletcher,  in  his  Vindication  of  the  Minutes  (p.  83)  says 

I'  Do  we  not  see  huudicds,  who,  when  they  have  reason  to  hope 

wellof  tlieir  state,  think  tlierc  is  no»liope  for  them?" 

I  lu  Dr.  Adam  Clark's  Commentary,  now  re-printing  in  this 


Personal  Assurance  of  the  Pardon  of  Sin.        29 

On  the  whole,  how  unstable  is  a  doctrine,  which, 
however  for  a  while  held  up  as  essential,  is  sure  to  ex- 
pose its  unsoundness;  and,  if  not  renounced,  must  be 
clogged  by  distinctions  not  alleged  to  be  found  in  the 
Word  of  God;  but  dictated  by  imperious  necessity,  in 
order  to  account  for  what  passes  before  the  eyes  of  its 
advocates. 

It  will  not  be  irrelevant,  to  state  the  difficulty  Mr. 
Wesley  was  put  to,  in  order  to  make  out  the  consis- 
tency of  his  position,  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
of  which  he  was  a  minister.  He  does  not  profess  to 
have  found  it  in  the  liturgy  or  in  the  articles:  but  he 
fastened  on  the  Homilies.  And  yet,  these  being  but  a 
larger  explication  of  the  articles,  it  is  not  natural  to  ex- 
pect to  find  an  highly  important  doctrine  not  hinted  at 

country,  there  is  a  remarkaWe  evidence  of  rernaiiiing  attachment 
ia  his  Society,  to  the  construction  of  Rom.  viii.  16  here  objected 
111.  He  coiisideis  "  with  our  spirit,"  as  the  same  with  «<  to  our 
iimiei-siancr.ng;" — "the  Place" — ssys  he  "or  laculty,  to  wliich 
such  information  can  properly  be  brought."  The  word  «<n«v^t<»/» 
rendered  "  Spiiit,"  is  evidently  uicd  to  denote  our  spiritual  natare 
generally — not  the  understanding  in  particular.  This  faculty  is 
expressed,  not  by  that  word,  but  by  "  f«t«,"  or  by  '«  hxicm"  or 
by  '•  c-yv£c-<?,"  or  by  "  ^^jjv."  The  distinrtion  is  especially  con- 
spicuous in  1  Cor  xiv.  15.  «I  will  pray  with  the  spirit,  and  I 
will  pray  with  the  understanding  also." 

Suc^i  forced  constructions  only  show  the  importance  of  the  text, 
to  the  support  of  a  favourite  opinion.  The  truth  is,  that  the  one 
cannot  stand  without  the  other.  i3ut  to  make  it  to  the  purpose, 
there  is  the  necessity,  either  of  combining  the  two  witnesses  into 
one,  or  of  making  a  translation  i>ot  warranted  by  the  original:  as 
in  the  inbtances  of  John  Wesiey  and  Adam  Clarke;  although 
their  renderings  differ  from  one  another.  Had  the  doctrine  been 
•correct,  it  would  have  been  found  over  the  wholeface  of  scripture. 


30        Some  Objections  against  the  Position  of  a 

in  the  one,  taught  clearly  ia  the  other.  [The  place  re- 
lied on  by  Mr.  Wesley,  is  "  'I'he  Homily  of  Sislvation;" 
which  says — *'  The  right  and  true  Christian  faith  is, 
not  only  to  believe  the  holy  scriptures  and  the  articles 
of  our  faith  are  true,  but  also  to  have  a  sure  trust  and 
confidence  to  be  saved  from  everlasting  damnation  by 
Christ;  Or,  as  is  expressed  a  little  after,  a  sure  trust 
and  confidence  which  a  man  hath  in  God)  that  his  sius 
are  forgiven,  and  he  reconciled  to  the  favour  of  God." 
The  Homily  is  correctly  quoted  l)y  Mr.  Wesley:  But 
when  he  afterwards  undertakes  to  state  the  substance  of 
the  above  account  of  faith,  he  f  xpresses  it  in  the  propo- 
sition— "  Faith  is  a  sure  trust  which  a  man  hath  in  God, 
that  his  sins  are  forgiven:"  As  if  this  »vere  the  essence 
and  the  whole  of  such  an  act  of  the  mind.  The  Homily 
contemplates  other  matters,  as  comprehended  in  its 
object.  This  is  made  the  more  explicit  by  the  context; 
which  speaks  of  faith  in  Cesar's  Commentaries,  and  of 
such  as  may  be  possessed  by  devils.]*     But  whether 

*  In  the  former  Ediiion,  instead  of  wh^t  is  between  the  two 
brackets,  it  was  as  tollows— The  place  relied  o^  by  Mr.  Wesley, 
is  in  the  Homily  <'  Of  Faith;"  inadvertently  quoted  by  him  (in  his 
Appeal  p.  27)  from  the  Homily  "  Of  Salvation;"  in  which  the 
words  are  not  found,  although  there  is  something  to  thi^nme 
cfiect.  The  Homily  says  concerning  faith — It  is  "not  only  the 
common  belief  of  the  articles  of  our  faith— this  Mr.  Wesley  omits 
— "  but  it  is  also  a  true  trust  and  confi^xnce  of  the  mercy  of  God, 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  By  ihe  omission  noticed,  the 
passage  is  made  to  represent  the  very  essence  of  faith  as  consist- 
ing in  the  confidence  spoken  of.  But  what  is  principally  to  be 
remarked  on,  is  the  disregard  of  the  ^ontext;  v,  hich  speaks  of  a 
species  of  faith  consisliog  in  barely  believing  what  is  related  in 


Personal  Assurance  of  the  Pardon  of  Sin.      3 1 

the  confidence  spoken  of  be  an  internal  suggestion  from 
the  Holy  Spirit,  or  arise  from  a  comparing  of  our  inward 
state  with  the  outward  testimony  of  scripture,  the 
Homily  dops  not  say.* 

Considc  ring  the  errour  guarded  against  in  the  Homily; 
it  is  hazardous  to  give  it  a  construction,  which  may 
bring  under  the  weight  of  it  a  doubting  and  disconsolate 
person,  who  neither  questions  the  sufficiency  of  the 
merits  of  the  Redeemer,  nor  has  any  hesitation  to  rest 
on  them  for  salvation,  but  desponds  greatly — perhaps 
from  some  erroneous  opinion,  and  especially  the  opinion 
here  in  question — that  of  the  necessity  of  waiting  for 
some  sensation,  which  may  be  construed  into  a  divine 
communication. 

It  is  worth  while  to  notice  in  what  way  the  Homilies 
speak,  when  the  question  now  at  issue  is  in  contempla- 
tion. To  show  this,  the  Homily  for  Whitsunday  shall 
be  quoted. 

Some  one  is  supposed  to  put  the  question — "  How 
shall  I  know,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  within  me?"  The 
answer  is  *'  Forsooth,  as  the  tree  is  known  by  the  fruit, 
so  is  also  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  fruits  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
according  to  the  mind  of  St.  Paul  (Gal.  v.)  are  these — 
Love,  joy,  peace,  long  suffering,  gendeness,  goodness, 
faithfulness,  meekness,  temperance,  &c.  Contrariwise, 
the  deeds  of  the  flesh  are  these — Adultery,  fornication, 
uncleanness,  wantonness,  idolatry,  witchcraft,  hatred, 
debate,  emulation,  wrath,  contention,  sedition,  heresy, 

scripture:  in  like  manner  as  there  is  a  belief  of  wlnt  is  I'ebted  in 
Cesar's  Commentaries.     In  opposition  to  this,  we    must   have 
faith  in  a  dispensation  in  which  we  feel  an  interest. 
•  See  note  U, 


32       Some  Objections  against  the  Position  bV. 

envy,  murder,  drunkenness,  gluttony,  and  such  like. 
Here  is  now  that  glass,  wherein  thou  mayest  behold  thy- 
self and  discorer,  whether  thou  have  the  Holy  Ghost 
within  thee,  or  the  spirit  of  the  flesh." 

Has  the  Church  been  unfaithful,  in  pointing  to  this 
source  of  satisfaction,  and  in  being  silent  as  to  the  other? 
It  is  here  confidently  believed,  that  she  has  not;  although 
the  contrary  is  the  case,  on  the  presumption  of  the  truth 
of  the  proposition  which  has  been  denied.* 

W.  W. 
See  note  V. 


Besides  the  two  corrections  of  the  former  publication  noticed 
in  the  proper  places,  there  are  the  following  corrections  ol  typo- 
graphical errours,  found  in  the  first  publication  of  the  Essay: 

Page  18  line  14  "  character"  for  "  characters.'' 

Page  26  line  1  «  10th"  for  «  9th." 

Ibid     line  1  8  "  obediercc"  ior  "  obediences." 

Page  28  line  5  "  purifieth"  for  «  pacificth.'' 

Page  29  first  note  "  he"  for  *«  ear." 

Ibid  second  note  "  Tvisa-is"*  for  "  i'vuSii"     .    ^ 

Ibid  "  ^ixftix' iov  *^  ha$oic6.'\ 


IS^OTES. 


NOTE  A — Page  7. 

The  first  comment  of  the  Pamphlet,  is  on  the  title  of  the  Essay: 
which  is  bent  to  another  nieanin?^  than  that  designed,  by  printing 
the  two  members  of  the  sentence  in  different  characters,  The 
Author  of  it  had  no  other  idea  of  personal  assurance,  than  as  the 
individual  is  interested  in  offers  designed  for  all  by  whom  they 
may  be  accepted:  the  interest  to  be  tesied,  as  described  in  what 
follows  from  Abp:  Usher.  With  the  help  of  italicks  and  a  suitable 
comment,  the  title  is  made  to  speak  a  sense  contradicted  hy  the 
general  tenour  of  the  Essay — that  of  a  species  of  application  which 
the  Author  is  alleged  to  have  admitted,  and  then  accused  of,  not 
preaching  to  his  congregations.  The  neglect  of  personal  appli> 
cation,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  expression,  he  would  have 
acknowledged  to  be  an  essential  defect  in  a  Minister  of  the  Gos- 
pel, and  a  professedly  christian  people. 

The  mistake  produced  by  the  comment  on  the  title,  m^y  be  illus- 
trated thus:  Some  one  may  be  supposed  to  lay  down  the  following 
position—"  There  has  been  a  refutation  of  the  Essay  of  W.  W. 
"  by  a  reply  of  J.  E."  A  second  person  may  be  supposed  to  deny 
the  position,  in  the  form  in  which  it  has  been  presented.  A 
third  may  step  in,  and,  putting  the  latter  part  in  italicks,  may  say 
to  the  second — You  acknowledge  that  the  Essay  has  been  refuted, 
but  you  deny  it's  having  been  done  by  J.  E.  Would  this  be  a 
fair  interpretation? 

It  was  intended  by  the  Author  of  the  Essay,  to  contradict  the 
assurance  of  paklon,  as  coming  immediately  from  the  Holy 
Spirit,  or  as  predicated  in  the  Gospel  individually.  But  he  did 
not  deny  the  application  ot  the  benefit  to  the  individual  believer, 
on  the  general  ground  of  the  promises  of  the  Gospel,  with  his 
knowledge  of  the  state  of  his  own  mind,  and  under  the  ordinary 
operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 


34  Notes. 

NOTE  B.—Pase  7. 

In  the  reply,  there  is  imputed  to  the  Author  of  the  Essay  a  very 
censurable  opinion,  which  he  has  not  only  not  expressed,  but 
against  which  he  has  carefully  guarded.  ^  It  is,  that  "  the  written 
"  word  merely  is  the  power  of  God  unto  Salvation,  without  the 
"influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  applying  it  to  the  heart."  There 
would  have  been  no  room  for  the  representation;  if,  with  the 
repetition  of  the  text  of  Scripture,  there  had  been  given  the  cir- 
cumstance, that  the  subject  was  declared  to  be  spoken  of — <'  inde- 
pendently on  personal  application."  Even  after  the  omission  of 
that  clause,  the  effect  would  not  have  been  accomplished,  if  there 
had  been  given  the  text  as  in  the  Essay.— "  Faith  cometh  by 
hearing,"  in  connexion  with  the  text  above  recited;  lor  then, 
there  would  have  been  perceived  to  be  as  much  room  fof  the 
criticism  on  the  other  side,  had  it  been  levelled  at  the  aposto- 
lick  writer  of  both  these  texts;  who  says  not  a  word  of  the 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  either  of  the  places. 

After  these  omissions  of  important  clauses  in  the  paragraph, 
it  is  prepared  for  the  bolder  step  of  an  addition.  Accordingly, 
in  the  next  paragraph  of  the  Reply,  the  Author  of  it,  by  a  train  of 
sentiment  which  perhaps  may  have  been  satisfactory  to  his  own 
mind,  lands  himself  on  the  conclusion— but  instead  of  declaring  it 
as  such,  affirms  it  to  be  a  statement  of  the  Author  of  the  Essay, 
which  it  is  not, — that  "no  other  causes  are  necessary"  (meaning 
to  salvation)  "  than  a  knowledge  of  the  Gaspeir*  defined  to  be 
attained  to  by  men  of  corrupt  minds,  and  taught  in  schools  and 
colleges.  Before  his  coming  to  this  conclusion,  he  misunder- 
stands a  maxim  which  he  impliedly  impeaches;  considering  it 
as  interdicting  two  or  more  causes,  each  of  which  contiToute^s  its 
share  of  the  effect,  and  no  more. 

With  all  this  omission  and  addition,  the  paragraph  becomes  a 
sufficient  ground  of  a  report,  which  has  accordingly  gone  forth, 
and  is  ef  course  believed  by  those  who  will  take  it  on  the  credit  of 
the  author  of  the  Reply,  that  the  author  of  the  Essay  has  de- 
nied the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God. 

NOTE  C— Page  9. 
In  exhibiting  the  passage  from  Archbishop  Usher,  it  was  con- 
sidered agreeably  to  his  intention,  as  a  sufficient  test  of  a  gracious 


JVotes.  ^5 

slate.  When  the  author  of  the  Essay  spoke  of  '«  contrariety" 
to  this,  it  was  in  the  character  of  a  test.  The  author  of  the  Reply, 
professes  to  hold  the  subject  in  perfect  concordance  with  Usher. 
How  ean  this  be,  when  the  Syllogism  is  conducted  to  its  conclu- 
sion, without  comprehending  what  is  called  for  by  the  position 
referred  to  in  the  title  pap;e?  The  quotation  from  Mr.  Wesley, 
concerning  the  testimony  of  our  own  spirits,  is  nothing  to  the 
purpose;  when  there  is  the  unequivocal  declaration,  that  this  must 
be  preceded  by  another  testimony,  adequate  to  the  effect? 

For  the  clearer  display  of  the  distinctiofi,  let  there  be  a  refer- 
ence to  the  Sermon  of  Mr.  Wesley,  on  Rom.  8,  16,  to  which  the 
Reply  has  directed  the  attentiam  (p.  10.)  It  shall  be  given  from 
Jon.  Crovvther's  portraiture  (p.  166.)  "The  testimony  of  the 
"  Spirit  is  an  inward  impression  on  the  soul,  whereby  the  Spirit 
<'  of  God  directly  witnesses  to  my  spirit  that  I  am  a  child  of  God: 
"  that  Jesus  Christ  balh  loved  me  and  given  himself  for  me:  that 
"  all  my  sins  are  blotted  out,  and  that  I,  even  I  am  reconciled  to 
"  God."  The  passage  is  introduced  by  its  being  said — "  It  is  hard 
"  to  find  words  in  the  language  of  men,  to  explain  the  deep  things 
"  of  God.''  A  tenet,  thus  acknowledged  not  to  have  been  deliver- 
ed in  definite  language  in  the  Scriptures,  is  made  the  distinguish- 
ing property  of  a  theological  system.  But  taking  the  testimony 
of  the  Spirit  as  defined,  it  makes  no  part  of  the  syllogism  of  Arch- 
bishop Usher:  which  is  accordingly  represented  as  defective, 
in  point  of  argument.  This  is  the  "  contrariety"  intended  in  the 
Essay. 

The  author  of  the  Reply  infers  from  the  paragraph  under  notice, 
that  the  author  of  the  Essay  did  not  consider  the  assurance  spoken 
of  as  "desirable."  If,  with  this  word,  there  had  been  set  down, 
as  in  the  Essay—"  and  to  be  laboured  after,"  the  reader  would 
have  perceived,  that  the  former  is  used  in  a  sense  different  from 
that  exhibited.  We  do  not  say  of  every  thing  in  itself  valuable, 
that  it  is  a  proper  subject  of  desire  or  wish.  The  acquisition  of 
riches,  in  right  of  heirship,  may  be  an  estimable  change  in  the 
condition  of  a  man:  but  if  he  be  conscientious,  it  has  not  been 
the  object  of  his  wish  or  desire.  As  to  any  thing  impossible,  or 
for  the  expectation  of  which  there  is  no  ground  to  desire  it,  is 
folly. 


36  Notes. 

The  author  of  the  Reply  is  dissatisfied  with  the  test  of  "gracious 
habits,"  as  laid  down  in  this  place;  and  pronounces  it  to  be  incon- 
sistent with  correct  ideas  of  justification.  Concerning  this,  it  is 
asked — "  Are  we  conscious  of  it,  at  the  time  that  it  takes  place,  or 
not  till  some  lime  afterwards?  And,  if  not  till  some  time  after- 
wards, l;ow  long?"  &c.  There  will  be  laid  a  ground  for  answers 
to  these  questions,  in  what  is  to  be  quoted  from  Dr.  Paley's  Ser- 
mon on  Conversion. 

In  the  Reply  it  is  supposed,  that  in  the  tssay,  an  improper 
use  is  made  of  the  words  "  sensible"  and  «  insensible:"  and  it  is 
asked,  whether  the  agency  of  the  wind  in  nature,  is  the  one  or  the 
other.  Answer:  The  word  *'  agency"  being  taken  in  its  usual 
sense,  as  signifying  "  a  quality  of  action,"  or  "  the  state  of  a  being 
in  action;"  that  of  the  wind  is  insensible,  or  not  an  object  of  sense. 
But,  not  so  is  its  effect  or  action,  on  the  organs  of  our  bodies.  In 
like  manner,  of  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  is  remarked  in 
the  Essay,  we  are  no  otherwise  conscious,  than  by  possessing  the 
gracious  habits  of  the  mind,  w!uch  are  subjects  of  spiritual  sensi- 
bility. This  is  conceived  to  be  in  agreement  with  John  iii.  8. 

The  author  of  the  Reply  is  pleased  to  say,  that  there  are  those, 
who,  with  himself,  regret  that  the  author  of  the  Essay  should  waste 
the  remains  of  his  life  "  in  labouring  to  demolish  so  evangelical 
and  precious  a  doctrine,"  as  that  contended  for.  His  defence  must 
rest  on  fidelity  to  his  ministry;  and  on  the  mischiefs  observed  by 
him  in  the  course  of  it,  as  staled  in  a  succeeding  p^rt  of  the  Essay. 
As  to  the  doctrine's  being  "  evangelical  and  "precious;"  that  is,  as 
is  here  supposed  to  be  the  me  ning,  fruitful  of  consolation;  there 
would  be  mure  room  for  the  affirming  of  tFiis,  if  it  were  not  so 
very  susceptible  of  the  fluctuations  of  doubt;  as  i*  confe^iW  by  its 
most  distinguished  advocates,  from  Calvin  downwards.  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's seasons  ot  heaviness,  are  acknowledged  by  himself;  without 
its  being  said  to  be  owing  to  "  the  quenching  and  the  grieving  of 
the  Spirit,"  as  is  suggested  of  such  cases  by  the  author  ot  the 
Reply  (p.  27.) 

When  such  a  man  as  President  Edwards,  as  quoted  in  the  Essay, 
says  ot  the  doctrine — "  It  is  to  be  fekred,  that  multitudes  of  souls 
have  been  eternally  undone  by  it;"  the  saying  bting  the  result  of 
much  observation  of  its  effects,  as  the  history  of  his  life  may  show; 


JSTotes,  37 

it  ought  not  to  be  uninteresting  to  the  conscience  of  a  minister  of 
the  gospel,  in  giving  counsel  to  a  candidate  for  the  ministry,  to 
warn  him  ot  an  errour  which  he  is  so  likely  to  encounter,  not 
mei  ely  in  theological  disputation,  but  in  its  intrusion  into  some  of 
the  most  trying  circumstances  of  the  members  of  his  future  flock. 

NOTE  D— Page  10. 

The  author  of  the  Reply  remarks  truly,  that  the  accounts  of  the 
ministry  of  the  Baptist  are  short;  and  that  it  is  said — "  Many  other 
things  preached  he  unto  the  people."  The  question  is,  not  whether 
all  the  things  which  he  preached  have  been  recorded;  but,  whether 
divine  inspiration  have  kept  back  a  communication,  which  enters 
into  every  branch  of  the  Christian  life;  and  which  would  have  oc- 
cupied no  more  space  than  some  of  the  addresses  there  recorded, 
on  minor  points  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  with  varieties  suited  to 
his  respective  auditors. 

The  author  of  the  Reply  has  added  another  answer;  it  being 
such,  as  that  if  he  be  a  qualified  organ  of  his  society,  reveals  a 
limitation  of  the  tenet  in  question,  which  the  author  of  the  Essay 
either  never  knew,  or  has  forgotten:  do  that  his  not  noticing  of  it, 
must  be  attributed  to  his  want  of  information,  and  not  to  his  want 
of  candour;  as  is  supposed,  with  the  concession  that  it  may  have 
been  from  oversight. 

"  The  Evangelists  unanimously  declare"  (says  the  Reply,  p.  1 3) 
«'  that  he"  (the  Baptist)  «  proclaimed  to  the  multitudes  who  came 
to  his  baptism,  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  to  repentance— 
but  he  that  cometh  after  me,  shall  baptize  you  xoitb  the  Holy 
Ghost"  Certain  it  is,  that  there  never  occurred  to  the  author  of 
the  Essay,  any  other  exposition  of  the  above  text,  than  that  recorded 
in  Acts  xi.  1 6,  as  proceeding  from  the  mouth  of  St.  Peter;  or  ra- 
ther, as 'implied  in  the  words  of  our  Lord  himself,  recited  and 
interpreted  by  that  apostle.  If  this  be  not  enough,  his  exposition 
of  the  meaning  of  the  Saviour  is  more  precise  in  the  fifth  verse  of 
the  first  chapter  of  the  same  book,  in  the  reference  to  the  ap- 
proaching event  of  the  miraculous  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost: 
which  is  iurther  explained  by  the  narrative  of  that  event,  in  the 
second  chapter.  It  will  hardly  be  alleged,  that  it  gives  an  account 
of  any  such  testimony  as  that  taken  above  from  Mr.  Wesley. 


38  Notes. 

Notwithstanding  the  Reply's  pronouncing  that  « it  will  not  serve 
W.  W's.  purpose,  to  say  that  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  here 
promised,  was  to  be  of  an  extraordinary  nature,  or  to  be  confined 
to  a  few;"  the  latter  presumes,  that  whatever  operation  of  the  Di- 
vine Spirit  was  begun  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  was  not  a  common 
privilege,  except  through  the  medium  of  its  effects;  but  of  an  ex- 
traordinary nature,  and  confined  to  a  few,  as  appears  from  the 
fourteenth  verse;  although  the  resulting  benefit  was  that  of  the 
whole  church,  and  therefore  reasonably  held  out  by  the  Baptist,  as 
an  object  of  expectation  to  multitudes.  The  stream  of  interpreta- 
tion in  the  Christian  church,  limits  the  first  effusion  to  the  apostles: 
and  if,  with  some,  we  extend  it  to  the  one  hundred  and  twenty 
disciples,  it  will  not  follow,  that  all  Christians  are  comprehended; 
much  less,  that  the  wonderful  event  hss  any  reference  to  the  matter 
now  at  issue. 

The  author  of  the  Reply  impliedly  acknowledges,  that  the  per- 
sonal assuranee  contended  for  by  him,  began  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost: being  therefore  irrelevant  to  all  holy  men  under  the  Old 
Testament;  and,  under  the  New,  until  that  period,  to  all  the  per- 
sonal attendants  on  the  Saviour.  Perhaps,  it  was  with  an  apprehen- 
sion of  the  consequences  of  the  concession,  that  there  was  added 
in  a  note  the  citation  of  John  vii.  39;  with  explanatory  words,  which 
do  away  the  force  of  it—-"  The  Holy  Ghost  was  not  given" — not 
so  clearly  and  fully  as  afterwards—"  because  that  Jesus  was  not 
yet  glorified."  Dr.  Doddridge,  who  seems  to  have^een  respected, 
and  justly,  by  the  author  of  the  Reply,  would  nave  supplied  from 
his  Commentary,  the  following  explanatory. words — "  In  that  ex- 
traordinary manner."  In  that  manner,  the  Holy  Ghost  had  not 
been  given  at  all.  And  if,  as  the  Reply  seems  to  suppos^^e  had 
been  so  given,  although  "  not  so  clearly  and  fully  as  afterwards;" 
it  throws  a  cloud  over  the  whole  theory,  in  relation  to  antecedent 
time.  For  then,  the  assurance  must  have  been  less  clear  and  less 
full:  that  is,  the  state  of  mind,  whatever  it  may  be,  loses  the  pro- 
perty of  assurance. 

NOTE  E— P^e  10. 
Theauthor  oftheReply  (p.  14)  again  makes  light  of  the  maxim, 
of  looking  for  no  more  causes,  than  are  necessary  to  the  effect. 


Notes.  39 

The  maxim  is  dictated  by  reverence  of  divine  wisdom;  and,  al- 
though more  immediately  applied  to  the  operations  of  nature,  may 
reasonably  be  transferred  to  the  department  of  grace,  Man,  in 
his  defect  of  judgment,  may  put  into  action  two  mechanick 
powers,  for  an  effect  to  which  one  of  them  would  be  competent. 
Not  so.  Omnipotence.  The  author  of  the  Reply  uniformly  speaks 
of  the  maxim,  as  though  it  interdicted  two  or  more  causes,  con- 
tributing to  any  effect.  The  meaning,  as  understood  by  the  author 
of  the  Essay,  admits  of  a  multiplicity  of  partial  causes;  in  such  a 
way,  as  that  if  any  one  of  them  be  withdrawn,  the  effect  will  not 
follow.  It  is  believed,  that  two  distinct  forces  keep  the  planets  in 
their  orbits;  each  of  which  is  in  part  the  cause,  and  the  two  united 
are  the  causes  of  the  whole  of  the  effect. 

It  must  have  been  under  a  different  impression,  that  the  author 
of  the  Reply  notices  Heb.  vi.  17,  18.  The  Divine  Being  is  there 
said  "  to  have  confirmed  his  promise  by  an  oath:"  two  immutable 
things,  <'  in  which  it  was  not  possible  that  God  should  lie."  What 
was  this  for,  but  to  bear  down  the  resistance  of  human  incredulity? 
Divine  wisdom,  would  not  have  put  forth  a  waste  of  energy  in  both, 
if  the  first  of  them  had  been  equal  to  the  extensive  use  contem- 
plated. 

Thus  it  is  contended,  in  the  interpretation  of  Rom;  viii.  16, 
that  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  conferred  indiscriminately 
on  Jewish  and  on  gentile  christians,  concurrently  with  suitable 
dispositions  of  mind  on  the  part  of  the  latter,  were  sufficient  evi- 
dence, in  opposition  to  the  prejudices  of  the  former,  of  release 
from  subjection  to  the  ritual  law.  But  a  divine  communication 
to  the  mind,  made  with  such  circumstances  as  to  be  relied  on, 
would  want  no  confirmation  of  a  miracle  to  the  same  eff'ect,  for 
the  satis^ction  of  those  immediately  concerned.  If,  as  the  author 
of  the  Reply  supposes,  the  outward  expression  of  the  forgiveness 
of  the  paralytick  was  principally  for  the  conviction  of  the  by- 
standers; it  is  strange,  that  this  should  be  recorded  by  three  cf 
the  Evangelists,  and  that  not  one  of  them  should  record  the  essen- 
tial part  of  the  benefit  to  the  person  the  most  concerned,  in  an 
inward  assurance  of  pardon.  Be  this  as  it  may,  there  is  irrele- 
vancy in  confounding  the  subject,  with  the  question  of  consolation 
resulting  to  the  patient.    The  author  of  the  Reply  ,remarks,  that 


40  JVotes, 

the  paralytick  "  could  have  enjoyed  no  more  consolation  from  a 
mere  outward  assurance  that  his  sins  were  forgiven,  virithout  being 
sensible  of  it,  than  he  could  from  an  outward  assurance  that  his 
body  was  healed,  without  feeling  it."  There  is  added — "  It  might 
as  well  be  said,  that  when  Peter  said  to  Eneas,  Jesus  Christ  maketh 
thee  whole,  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  feel  it."  Can  there  the  n 
be  overlooked  the  circumstance,  that  inward  feeling  may  be  ex- 
cited by  outward  communication?  On  the  contrary  supposition, 
a  condemned  criminal  cannot  indulge  satisfaction  from  tidings  of 
his  pardon,  although  comnmnicated  by  the  proper  officer,  and 
under  the  seal  and  the  signature  of  state. 

But  the  author  of  the  Reply  thinks,  that  our  blessed  Saviour 
did  suggest  the  doctrine  occasionally,  and  in  set  discourses.  Some 
texts  are  alleged,  as  being  thought  to  the  purpose.  Certain  it 
is,  that  the  author  of  the  Essay  never  conceived  of  them  as  what 
•would  be  brought  iorward  in  deliberate  argument,  on  the  question 
now  at  issue.  But  being  given  on  the  other  side,  doubtless  as  a 
specimen  of  the  many,  which,  it  is  said,  are  to  the  purpose,  there 
shall  be  some  notice  of  them  in  another  place, 

NOTEF— Page  12. 

The  author  of  the  Reply  (p.  17)  joins  the  3d  and  4th  objections. 
He  rejects  the  term  "an  inward  voice;"  which  haa  been  used  in 
the  Essay,  in  a  passage  given  as  synonymous  with  "  inward  sug- 
gestion or  declaration."  Mr.  Wesley  made  use "^f  the  word  "  im- 
pression." The  subject  might  have  made  it  manifest,  that  the 
word  "  voice"  was  used  metaphorically:  and  however  rejected  on 
this  occasion,  it  occurs  often  in  discourse,  as  applicable  to  the 
present  question.  ^ 

The  Essay  is  charged  with  sophistry,  because,  in  reference  to 
the  preaching  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  it  asks  of  a  dissentient— 
"  What  would  he  think  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  who,  in  any 
one  address  to  a  sinner,  and  professing  to  tell  him  what  he  must 
do  to  be  saved,  should  be  silent  as  to  the  inward  voice  in  question." 
For  answer  it  is  said — "  I  think  that  a  minister  of  the  gospel  might 
tell  a  sinner  what  he  must  do  to  \)e  saved,  without  saying  any 
thing  about  an  inward  voice,  and  even  without  telling  him  of  this 
personal  assurance.    For  this  is  not  what  a  sinner  has  to  do,  it  is 


JVotes.  41 

God's  word,  aud,  in  conjunction  with  tlie  witness  of  our  own 
Spirit,  is  the  comforting  evidciice  of  our  salvation.  In  ansver  to 
this  itisDot  perceived,  that  on  the  question — "What  shall  Idotobe 
saved,"  the  knowledge  of  the  fruit  of  tlif-  inquiiy  can  be  foreign  to 
it.  Be  it,  that  the  giving  of  the  personal  assurance  must  be  the 
work  of  Go.'!:  the  endeavouring  to  obtain  it,  is  represent  d  as 
rcfelii-g  witti  naen.  Sc  say  Divines  of  the  Westminster  confession; 
and' so  says  the  instrument  it-jelf.  If  Anninian  Divines  think  other- 
wise, they  carry  this  poim  further  then,  the  advocates  of  the  Gal- 
vlnistick  theory.  But  wisaiever  be  the  mind  of  the  author  of  the 
R'.-r  ly.  it  is  here  conceived,  not  to  speaU  the  sense  of  his  soc'eiy, 
Af  'he  beginning  of  their  new  i)lan,  in  tiie  peisons  of  the  deceased 
J'lm  and  Charles  Wesley,  and  in  the  endeavours  ot  their  irstructor 
to  (liitct  their  attention  to  the  assurance  in  question,  there  is  no 
appearance  of  its  being  thought  a  work  to  be  left  wholly  to  G:>A, 
Neither  does  this  seem  to  1  •  ve  been  thought  of,  when  an  adnnoni- 
tion  was  given  to  the  present  writei-,  on  the  subject  of  preaching. 
If  the  author  of  the  Reply  deliberately  thinks  as  he  has  here  Writ- 
ten, he  must  think  difTeientiy  from  Mr.  \\  eslcy,  in  the  3d  minute 
of  the  cfinfcrence  .  f  1770;  :  nd  frcm  Mr.  Fletcher,  in  his  vindication 
of  that  minute  from  p.  47,  to  p.  54.  In  the  ntinute  it  is  sa»d,  that 
nothing  is  more  false  than  the  maxim,  that  a  man  can  do  nothing  in 
order  to  justification.  And,  accordinir  to  Mr.  Wesley,  this  is  in- 
stantly followed  by  the  impression.  The  two  being  thus  connected, 
the  labouring  for  one  is  the  labouring  for  both. 

The  author  of  the  Reply,  in  aoing  on  to  the  acts,  still  confound- 
ing the  subject  with  that  '  f  mi'aculous  gilts,  thmks  it  worth  his 
while  to  cite  the  case  of  Ccrnc'.iiis  in  t!ie  10. h  chnpter,  and  from 
thence  he  passes  to  the  case  of  St.  P.uil,  in  ti  e  9th  chapter.  That 
there  must  have  been,  in  each  of  these  cases,  consoljtion  suited 
to  it,  is  not  denied.  The  question  is,  as  to  the  manner.  The  authw 
of  the  Reply  will  hardly  sfiy,  that  thete  is  any  thing  like  the 
intimation  of  acceptance,  v.'hich  Mr.  Wesley  states  to  have  been 
given  to  himself.  But  when  the  author  of  ti.e  Essay  had  described 
Saul  as  called  on  by  Ananias  to  wash  away  his  sins  in  baptism,  it 
was  added — "  This  divinely  instituted"  sign  being  judged  by  that 
holy  man,  to  be  evidence  sufficiently  satisfactory  of  the  inward 
grace  promised  to  accompany  it." 


42  Notes, 

Here  the  author  of  the  Reply  steps  in  with  a  syllogism,  thus 
represerted  as  \.\:t  logick  of  tlie  author  of  the  Essay— "  No  more 
causes  are  («  be  looked  for,  than  are  sufBcient  for  the  effect.  But 
baptism  is  an  evidence  of  inward  grace  sufficiently  satisfactory. 
Therefore,  no  other  evidence  is  to  be  looked  for"  The  errour  of 
confoundint; '*  cause"  with  "evidence"  being  put  out  of  view,  let  it 
be  remarked,  that  the  minor  of  ihis  syllogism,  was  never  expressed 
by  the  person  from  whom  it  is  said  to  have  proce«  ded.  His  posi- 
tion was  not  a  universal  affirmative,  as  it  is  represented  (o  have 
been,  but  predicated  of  the  individual — Saul.  There  is  no  hesita- 
tion to  avow  the  sentiment,  that  the  position  is  true  of  all  fit  reci- 
pients of  the  rite  ol  baptism.  It  may  be  considered  as  implied:  but 
this  did  not  warrant  the  swelling  of  what  was  said  of  a  particular 
character,  into  a  general  proposition. 

The  above,  may  be  an  answer  to  the  charge  of  inconsistency 
from  the  author  of  the  Reply,  between  what  is  said  concerning 
baptisrr:,  and  the  max  m  of  no  more  causes,  than  are  necessary  to 
the  effect.  God  acts  through  the  channel  oi  his  own  institution; 
agreeably  to  which,  there  is  required  fitness  in  the  recipient.  As 
the  light  of  the  scm,  although  a  cause  sufficient  for  the  effect  of 
making  tlie  objects  of  the  materia!  universe  visible,  requires  an 
atn^osphere,  and  an  eye  possessf-d  of  the  sense  of  seeing,  so  the 
ordinance  of  baptism,  comprehending  the  visible  sign  and  the  in- 
visible grace,  although  sufficient  for  the  effect  of  engrafting  into 
grace,  requires  to  be  administered  to  a  person  within  the  contem- 
plation oi  divine  wisdom  in  the  appointment.  ^ 

It  should  be  noticed,  that  ti>e  Essay  was  penned  for  the  perusal 
of  some  theolojiical  s'udents,  who  were  presumed  to  be  acquainted 
with  the  philosophical  maxim  introduced.  Tnis  circumstance,  and 
the  obvious  meaning  of  the  words,  seemed  to  render  ex^fnation 
unnecessary. 

On  proceeding  to  the  epistles,  the  author  of  the  Reply  is  dis- 
satisfied with  the  assertion,  that  there  are  but  few  alleged  to  the 
purpose  of  his  tenet.  The  author  of  the  Essay  conceives  of  himself, 
as  having  exhibited  all  alleged  by  men  ot  the  most  name,  of  those 
by  wiiom  the  tenet  has  been  publickly  advocated.  That  the  zeal 
of  some  may  have  carried  them  further,*is  very  probable;  and  made 
the  more  so,  by  the  real  meaning  of  the  few  texts  incidentally  in- 
troduc«d  in  the  Reply. 


JVotes.  43 

The  author  of  it,  in  remarking  <iu  its  being  said  in  the  Essay, 
that  every  aur  of  the  texts  was  taken  from  tht.-  writings  of  Si.  Paul, 
ought  to  iiave  liotlced  its  bavins^'  been  also  said,  that  his  special 
designation,  and  t!;e  subjects  to  which  liis  mind  was  especially 
directed,  led  to  language  liable  to  be  bent  to  subjects  analagous  to, 
but  not  the  same.  Let  this  be  illustrated  in  a  single  instance.  To 
combat  the  prejudice  of  subjecting  the  gentile  Christians  to  the 
ritual  law,  it  wss  pertinent  to  oppose  tlie  truth  contained  in  the 
Old  Testament,  that,  before  the  giving  of  the  law,  there  had  been 
the  predestinating  of  Jews  and  gentiles,  to  be  congregated  in  a 
participation  of  the  gospel;  and  that  thus  they  were  elect  or  chosen, 
as  a  body,  as  hud  heretofore  been  the  case  with  the  progeny  of 
Abraham  only.  It  was  hardly  possible  :o  disclose  this  design,  with- 
out the  use  of  language  easily  misconstrued,  to  what  has  been 
called  the  irrespective  decrees  of  God,  in  reference  to  individuals. 

As  to  the  other  apostles;  it  is  in  vain,  that  the  author  of  the  Reply 
uould  account  for  their  silence,  from  the  circumstance,  that  their 
epistles  were  "chiefly  devoted  to  subjects  of  morality,  the  cor- 
recting of  errours,  or  general  topicks."  Any  of  these,  might  have 
admittci  of  the  introduction  of  the  position  in  question,  had  it  been 
deemed  correct.  The  appeal  may  be  confiJenily  made,  whether 
there  would  be  similar  allowance  in  favour  of  any  minister,  who, 
admitting  the  truth,  should  not  make  it  prominent  in  his  preaching. 
The  author  of  the  Reply  has  anticipated  this  appeal,  and  answered 
to  it,  in  his  fourth  page. 

NOTE  G— Page  12. 
The  solitary  text  noticed  (p.  22)  in  opposition,  is  Titus  iii.  5—8: 
"  Not  by  works  of  righteousness,  which  we  have  done,  but  ac- 
cording to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration, 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly, 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour;  that  being  justified,"  &6.  It 
never  occurred  to  the  author,  to  deny  the  regenerating  grace  of 
baptism,  nor  the  renovating  which  can  proceed  only  from  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  God,  nor  his  being  shed  in  religious  graces.  But 
what  relation  this  has  to  the  position  contradicted,  the  author  is 
utterly  at  a  loss  to  conceive.  The  identifying  of  it  with  what  goes 
before,  is  the  taking  for  granted  of  the  matter  to  be  proved.    Of 


44  Notes. 

commentators,  there  shall  be  referred  to  Dr.  Doddridge  only:  who 
certainly  saw  no  such  sense  in  the  passage,  as,  on  the  other  side, 
must  have  seemed  to  be  conspicuous. 

NOTE  H— Page  112. 

When  it  is  said  in  the  Essay,  that. there  is  fiequent  reference  to 
tests,  which,  according  to  the  oppr)site  tenci,  are  unnecessary;  it 
is  meant,  and  this  is  the  sttict  interpretation  of  the  words,  that  the 
non-necessity  of  the  test  in  question  nviy  fairly  be  inferred.  The. 
meaning  was  not,  that  the  superfl\iity  ot  either  .was  held  on  the 
other  side.  Here  again,  the  author  of  the  Reply  (p.  23)  charges  the 
author  of  th  E-^say  with  maintaining,  tl,at  "  baptism  alone  is  an 
evidence  of  inward  grace,  sufficiently  satisfactory."  He  never 
said,  nor  thought  so.  It  was  said  to  be  saiislactory,  in  the  case  of 
penitent  and  believing  Saul. 

In  this  part  of  the  Reply,  the  author  of  it  protests  against  what 
he  represents  as  a  fiostulate  in  the  Essay,  that  '<  the  trutli  of  any 
doctrine,  however  important,  depends  on  the  muliitude  of  texts  by 
which  it  is  supported;  and  that  (he  silence  of  the  inspired  writers 
respecting  it,  in  some  places^  where  we  may  suppose  it  ought  to 
have  been  mentioned,  if  true,  when  it  is  mentioned  in  other  places, 
is  any  valid  argument  against  it."  No  such  postulate,  is  in  the 
Essay.  And,  as  to  what  was  said,  the  Reply  has  given  a  help  to 
explanation.  The  author  of  tue  latter  has  charged  the  author  of 
the  other,  in  regard  to  a  Christian  privilege  supposed  to  have  been 
admitted  by  him,  with  not  pressing  it  in  many  more  discourses 
than  a  certain  other  subject,  which,  by  the  by,  he  does  not  remem- 
ber ever  to  have  discoursed  en  from  tlic  pulpit.  The  argument  is 
here  conceded  to  be  good,  if  the  teims  be  mutually  understood, 
and  if  the  applicr^iion  have  been  made  with  truth.  It  is  wisned  to 
clear  the  aposiles  of  a  charge  mads,  whether  true  or  not,  on  the 
author  of  the  Essay.  If  the  latter  should  prove,  that  he  had  some- 
times, although  seldom,  complied  with  what  has  been  held  up  to 
him  as  a  duty,  would  tliis  relieve  him  from  the  charge?  It  evi- 
dently would  not;  either  in  his  own  opinion,  or  in  that  of  the  author 
of  the  Reply-  So,  concerning  a  few  texts  from  scripture, and  those 
taken  from  places  in  which  other  sulJ'jects  are  prominent,  it  is 
meant,  not  that  the  texts  are  to  be  undervalued,  but  that  it  is  more 


Notes.  45 

likely  t'^ey  should  be  misinterp  eted,  than  that  there  should  be 
seldom  inculcated  so  important  a  matter,  as  that  in  question  must 
be  confessed  to  be,  if  correct. 

NOTEI— Page  13. 

By  the  author  of  the  Repiy,  this  objicion  ^s  slighted,  as  being 
•vague.  It  couid  not  have  been  otherwise,  in  the  case  of  a  general 
negai»')n. 

However  unnecessary  may  be  recourse  to  the  falhers,  in  the 
estin>atic'not  t^ie  auiUur  of  the  Reply;  it  did  not  seenri  bo  tothe  author 
oi  the  E>say,  wh^n  he  was  penning  it  for  the  perusal  of  tneologi- 
cal  students  of  a  church,  which  indeed  knows  no  ether  standard  of 
truth  than  Scripture,  but  which,  on  any  question  concerning  the 
sense  of  fh?.t  code,  on  a  point  supposed  to  be  very  important  in  the 
system,  lays  great  stress  on  opinion  held  in  the  earliest  ages,  and 
supposed  to  have  been  transmitted  to  them  by  the  apostles.  At 
the  time  of  the  reformation,  the  church  of  England  took  this 
ground  to  great  advancage:  resisting  the  overbearing  plea  of  anti- 
quity, by  going  up  to  antiquity  still  higher.  At  the  present  day, 
the  Ro-y.an  catholick  church  lays  so  much  stress,  on  some  things 
truly  alleged  to  be  found  in  writers  of  the  fiurth  century  and 
downwards,  as  sometimes  makes  a  serious  impression  on  it)quiring 
minds:  and,  as  on  the  present  subject,  it  has  been  urged  with 
effect,  that  the  earlier  writers  knew  nothing  of  such  matters, 
either  as  truth  or  as  heresy.  The  like  use  has  been  made  of  the 
same  nr.ean,  in  reference  to  our  Lord's  divinity  and  atonement:  and 
further,  to  some  matters  in  what  is  called  the  Calvinistick  system; 
against  which  Mr.  Wesley  set  himself  with  great  zeal. 

The  author  of  the  Reply,  will  not  attempt  to  account  for  the 
silence  of  Justin  and  T  rtuUian,  unil  it  oe  duly  proved.  It  was 
impossible  to  prove  it  in  the  Essay,  but  by  making  their  folio 
volumes  a  part  of  it.  The  E-s^y  had  said — "and  others  "  on 
which  it  is  remarked — •'  We  canoot  tell  why  it  does  not  appear  in 
them,  until  we  know  who  they  are."  The  answer  is  short.  Their 
names  may  be  f<Hind  in  any  of  the  ecclesiastical  histories. 

The  Riply  refers  to  Mr.  Wesley's  appeal,  on  the  subject  of  the 
fathers.     After  a  repetusal  of  the  portion  of  it  supposed   to  be 


46  Notes. 

meant,  from  p.  40  to  p.  68  of  the  first  part  of "  the  further  appeal," 
there  is  not  perceived  reason  to  revoke  what  was  said  from  general 
recollection,  that  it  did  not  furnish  a  sentence,  or  the  scrap  of  a 
sentence,  alleged  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  in  question.  In  tlie  pat^es 
alluded  to,  seven  texts  of  Scripture  are  discussed;  of  which  one  only 
—Rom.  viii.  16,  can  be  plausibly  said  to  be  pertinent  to  the  present 
point.  Mr,  Wesley  does  indeed  bring  a  passage  from  Chrysostom 
and  another  from  Athanasius,  to  prove,  that  adoption  to  be  the 
sons  of  God  is  not  peculiar  to  the  first  C'ristians,  but  v;nrni»jon  to 
believers.  This  is  n'it  the  point  at  issue.  It  is,  wheth'jr  the 
general  declarations  of  God  in  Scripture,  resiing-on  an  extraordi- 
nary display  of  Omnipotence  [although  not  independently  on  the 
ordinary  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  mind]  be  the  ground 
on  which  the  individual,  repenting  and  believing,  is  to  conceive 
of  himself  as  brought  within  the  sphere  of  adoption;  or  tliis  must 
be  communicated  to  him  personally,  by  an  immediate  communi- 
cation of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Neither  Chrysostom  nor  Athanasius 
applies  the  docirine  to  this  point,  nor  docs  Mr.  Wesley  state  that 
they  so  apply  it.  On  the  contrary,  however  decisively  he  delivers 
this  property  of  his  doctrine  in  other  places,  he  keeps  it  out  of 
view  in  the  present  place.  It  was  not  neccsssry  to  the  question 
between  him  and  his  opponent;  who  had  contended  concerning  all 
the  texts  in  the  discussion,  that  they  were  merely  descriptive  of 
the  spirit  of  the  Christian  system,  in  comparison  with  that  ot  the 
Jews;  and  that  they  belonged  only  to  the  apostolick  "age. 

NOTE  K— Page  13. 
Does  the  author  of  the  Reply  suppose  (p-'^6)  of  the  reference 
in  the  Essay  to  the  institutions  of  the  Church  of  Englan^J^at  it 
can  be  invalidated  by  the  opinion  of  any  bisliop  wi)0  may  be 
named  by  him?  There  is  however  peculiar  infelicity,  in  bringing 
in  the  name  of  Bishop  Pearson  for  this  purpose:  Which  is  pro- 
posed to  be  shown  below. 

NOTE  L,— Page  14. 
It  will  not  be  Irrelevant  to  remark  i!ie  circumstance,  that  this 
objection  has  noc  been  noticed  in  the  Reply,  in  the  pf»int  of  view 
in  which  it  is  conceived  to  stand,  except  incidentally  and  in  a  note- 


Notes.  47 

The  consiruciion  is,  that  it  could  not  have  been  prominently  no- 
ticed, without  an  acknowlfjdgment  of  the  f;  ci;  and  that  it  could 
not  have  boen  acknowle^ed,  without  great  abatement  of  the  advan- 
tage claim<'d  in  favor  of  the  position,  of  its  being  "  precious  and 
evangelical:"  on  account,  as  is  here  supposed,  of  its  consolatory 
tendency. 

There  is  however  another  subject,  to  which  the  objection  has 
been  misinterpteted— ^(p.  27)  that  of  quenching  and  grieving  the 
Holy  Spirit  bv  unfaithfulness.  Without  entrenching  on  that  sub- 
ject, the  contemplated  case  may  be  perceived  to  originate,  some- 
times in  temporal  distress,  and  s:.metimes  in  a  disordered  state  of 
the  nerves.  On  such  occasions,  be  the  approach  to  what  the 
author  of  the  Reply  calls  *' a  partial  derangement*'  more  or  less; 
of  which  nothing  had  been  said  in  the  Essay;  the  author  of  it 
denies  the  charge  of  ascribing  to  the  maintainers  of  the  position, 
their  «  contending  for  nothing  more  than  a  casual  emotion."  He 
does  not  doubt,  that  ihey  contend  for  the  graces  of  the  heart,  and 
for  a  correct  course  of  life.  But  he  supposes,  that  they  also  con- 
tend for,  as  the  beginning  ol  the  Christian  life,  what  may  be^to 
use  the  words  furnished  in  the  Reply — "Nothing  more  than  a 
casual  emotion,  depending  on  the  ebbing  and  flowing  of  that  un- 
described  sometliing,  which  he"  (the  present  writer)  "calls  the 
animal  spirits."  Yes,  undescribed;  because,  ns  to  the  expression,  it 
is  understood  in  common  discourse;  and  bc-csusethe  describing  of 
the  subject  falls  within  the  province  of  the  Anatomist. 

NOTE  M.— Page  17. 

The  author  of  the  Reply  (p.  28)  recriminates  with  the  charge 
of"  vacillations  and  inconsistences  of  opinion:''  which  he  takes  up, 
as  if  it  were  intended  of  the  oppositions  of  individual  Divines.  It 
was  designed  of  changes  in  the  belief  of  bodies  of  men:  of  whose 
sense,  in  some  instances,  although  not  in  that  of  the  Church  of 
England,  individuals  may  be  considered  as  the  organs. 

Of  the  charges  of  inconsistency  on  the  present  writer,  he  wili 
only  remark,  that  so  far  as  concerns  the  doctrine  of  his  church,  the 
only  proot  alleged  is  the  misrepresented  opinion  of  a  single  bishop. 
As  to  the  Church  of  England,  the  reference  recommended  in  the 
pamphlet  to  Mosheim,  in  proof  of"  vacillations  and  inconsistences,*' 


49  Notes. 

win  cerlainlv  show,  that  there  have  been  diflferent  interpretations 
of  lier  articles,  by  fUfffrent  Divines.  Bu'  ^U' h  differences  are  "  ide 
of  the  present  point.  The  seventeenth  anide  says,  th^l  the  pjodly 
consideration  of  predestination  is  full  of  comfort  "  to  godly  per- 
sons, and  such  as  feel  in  themselves  the  Vorkini;  of  the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  mortifying  the  works  of  the  flesh,  and  drawing  up  their 
tnird  to  high  and  heavenly  things."  Or>  the  question,  whether 
predestination  be  founded  on  faith  and  works  foreseen,  of  which 
the  article  says  nothing,  there  have  been  opposite  opini'ins,  with- 
out a  vestige  of  vacillation  in  the  church.  But  if  she,  afier  saying 
as  above,  had  defined  the  doctrine  in  the  same  terms  in  any  other 
of  her  institutions,  and  then  applied  it  as  full  of  comfort  to  thobC, 
who  feel  in  themselves  an  impression  of  the  pardon  of  their  sins;  it 
would  have  given  occasion  to  a  question,  independent  on  that  of  a 
conditional  or  an  unconditional  decree:  and  there  would  have  been 
a  vacillation,  unfavourable  to  the  admission  of  the  first  affirmed 
confidence  as  a  religious  test. 

The  author  of  the  Essay,  under  the  tenth  objection,  has  made  a 
reference  to  the  standards  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  Protestant 
Churches,  and  to  the  opinions  of  some  eminent  Divines,  not  of  his 
own  persuasion.  Of  all  this,  the  author  of  the  Reply  has  taken  no 
notice.  It  might  have  been  expected,  from  the  respect  expressed 
by  him  for  Dr  Doddridge,  that  there  would  have  been  an  endea- 
vour to  rescue  tliis  Divine,  from  wiiat  ought  to  have  b'  en  consider- 
ed a  reproach.  To  make  the  ref.-rence  the  more  definite,  let  it 
rest  on  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  the  book  numed  m  the  Essay. 
With  this,  let  there  be  taken  a  b^ok  of  like  celebrity  with  the  same 
•body  of  Chri'stiiins,  and  lately  reprinted  in  -thjs  citv — "  Boston's 
Fourfold  Sta't" — Ist  head  of  3d  state.  It  is  not  forgotlefl|  how 
little  argument  is  allowed  by  the  author  of  the  R  ply  to^e  cir- 
cumstance of  silence,  except  when  the  interpretation  of  it  may 
help  to  a  personal  attack  on  a  minister  disapproved  of  by  him. 
But  it  IS  here  conceived,  tliat  in  some  cases,  not  excepting  the  case 
of  a  defective  preocher,  silence  may  reach  the  highest  grade  of 
sinfulness.  If  a  guide,  after  voluntarily  presenting  himself  to  a 
traveller,  with  the  proffer  of  informing  him  of  the  road  to  the  object 
of  his  intended  journey,  should  be  guil  y\>f  an  omission,  tending 
to  mislea"  at  th.  offset;  it  tvould  be  utceptive;  however  accurate- 
ly the  rest  of  the  road  might  be  portriifed. 


Notes,  49 

Perhaps  it  was  to  counterbalance  the  weipjht  of  such  authorities 
as  the  above,  tliat  the  author  of  the  R^^ply  has  introduced  the  names 
of  Bisliop  Pearson,  Di'.  Puley,  and  Dr.  Buchanan — three  Divines 
of  the  Cimrch  of  Enejland. 

Tlie  passage  brought  from  Bishop  Pccirson,  is  not  to  the  pur- 
pose of  the  position.  No  consistent  member  of  the  Episcopal 
Ghvirch,  objects  to  the  tertRS  "  assure,"  "  earnest,"  &c,  as  applied 
to  a  religious  state.  The  question  relates  to  the  manner,  in  which 
the  work  is  accomplished.  It  is  a  great  oversiL':ht  in  the  author 
of  the  Reply,  that  in  the  passage  quoted,  he  marks  the  word 
<*  because"  as  emphatical;  witiioui  perceiving,  that  it  is  adverse  to 
his  object.  The  Galatians  had  become  sons  of  God;  and  because 
they  were  sons,  God  had  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  their 
hearts."  Dr.  Doddridge  has  well  paraphrased  on  this  passage. 

Let  Bishop  Pearson's  Exposition  of  "I  believe,"  be  read; 
wherein  he  professes  to  give  a  full  account  of  the  act  of  faith: 
or,  let  there  be  read,  what  he  has  delivered  under  the  article  of 
"  The  Forgiveness  of  Sins:"  and  it  will  be  difficult  to  find  any 
thing  to  the  purpose  of  the  position;  or,  in  the  case  of  deficiency 
where  it  ought  to  be  found,  to  defend  the  American  bishops  in 
enjoining  on  students  of  theology  the  reading  of  the  book.  This, 
to  be  sure,  is  only  silence:  but  it  is  the  silence  of  Bishop  Pearson; 
who  would  not  have  omitted  what  was  essential  to  his  subject. 

Of  all  the  sermons  on  Conversion,  ever  perused  by  tlie  present 
writer,  the  last  which  he  should  have  expected  to  see  quoted  to 
the  purpose  of  the  position,  is  that  of  Dr.  Paley.  The  learned  au- 
thor, not  far  before  the  passage  quoted  from  him,  contemphtes 
two  sorts  of  persons:  those  to  whom  conversion,  and  those  to  whom 
improvement  is  to  be  preached.  The  former,  under  two  subdivi- 
sions, are  they  of  whom  the  passage  quoted  in  the  Reply,  and 
many  otller  excellent  things,  are  said.  After  this,  the  preacher 
goes  on  to  his  second  sort  of  persons,  thus — «  But  I  am  willing 
to  believe,  that  there  are  very  many  Christians,  who  neither  have 
in  any  part  of  their  lives  been  without  influencing  prmciples,  nor 
have  at  any  time  been  involved  in  the  habit  and  course  of  a  parti- 
cular known  sin,  or  have  allowed  themselves  in  such  course  and 
practice.     Sins,  without  doubt,  tiiey  have  committed,  more  than 


50  Notes, 

sufficient  to  humble  them  to  the  dust;  but  they  have  not,  to  repeat 
the  same  words  again,  lived  in  the  course  of  any  p;nticular  known 
sin,  whether  of  commission  or  neglect,  and  by  deliberation  and  of 
aforethought,  allowed  thems'Ives  in  such  course.  The  Conver- 
sion  therefore,  above  described,  cannot  a-pply  to,  or  be  requireu  of, 
such  Christians.  To  these  we  must  preach,  not  conversion,  but 
imfirovemene," 

The  distinction  sustained  in  this  passage,  had  been  before  more 
largely  insisted  on  through  four  pages,  beginning  with  the  second 
paragraph  of  the  sermon.  Doubtless,  Dr.  B.uchanan  had  well 
weighed  the  sense  of  it,  before  he  quoted  it  in  a  note  to  his  ser- 
mon, entitled  ««  The  Star  in  the  East."  This  excellent  person  was 
discoursing  of  the  conversion  of  the  Hindoos.  He  knew,  that  in 
the  country  which  he  had  visited,  there  l-ad  been  made  converts 
by  name,  to  whom  the  leading  truths  of  Christianity  had  never 
bben  disclosed.  And  he  knew,  that  in  his  own  country,  there  were 
Christians  in  profession  only.  But  it  was  his  desire,  that  the  pro- 
jected conversion  ol  which  he  was  discoursing,  might  be  conge- 
nial with  the  spirit  of  the  religion  to  be  disseminated.  To  this 
purpose,  the  quotation  from  Palcy  was  pertinent,  while  it  is  irrela- 
tive to  that  of  the  Reply. 

It  may  be  now  proper,  to  look  back  on  the  questions  proposed 
under  note  C  concerning  "  Justification."  If  the  principles  of  Dr. 
Paley  be  correct,  there  is  a  proportion  of  Christian  people,  with 
whom  the  former  took  place  at  their  baptism;  as  is  affirmed  in  the 
third  part  of"  The  Homily  of  Salvation."  As  to  persons  convert- 
ed from  a  life  of  sin,  they  may  reason  concerning  their  state,  in 
some  such  way  as  that  propounded  by  Arcl>bishop  Usher.  Hence 
their  assurance,  unbounded  as  respects  the  faithfulness  of  God:  of 
which  there  needs  not  to  be  any  abatement  as  to  the  future,  ex-- 
eept  what  may  arise  from  such  considerations  as  where  it  is  said-^ 
n  Let  him  that  thinketh  he  standeth,  take  heed  lest  he  fall."  On 
the  promises  of  God  in  scripture,  the  dependence  should  be  unre- 
served, both  as  to  the  present  and  as  to  the  future.  Still,  in  censi- 
deration  of  the  source  of  danger  intimated,  it  is  of  importance  to 
loik  forward  to  gracious  habits:  and  in  proportion  to  the  stability 
of  these,  should  be  the  absence  of  fear.     ■• 


JVotes.  51 

NOTE  N.— Page  17. 
Although  this  has  been  passed  over  by  the  author  of  the  Reply, 
it  is  a  very  important  consideration.  There  has  been  already  given 
Mr.  Wesley's  definition  of  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  con- 
sisting in  a  certain  impression  made  on  the  mind.  It  is  impossible 
the  impression  should  be  more  strong:,  than  is  testified  by  pious 
and  virtuous  men  and  women,  to  be  on  theirs,  inciting  them  to 
the  preaching  oi  opinions,  considered  by  both  of  the  parties  on  the 
present  question  to  be  contrary  to  scripture.  There  is  also  the 
-fact  of  incitement  to  wicked  actions,  in  wliich  the  agents  consider- 
ed themselves  as  obeying  the  calls  of  vehement  impression.  In- 
stances are  given  in  the  Essay:  to  which  there  shall  be  added,  the 
single  instance  of  R^ivaillac;  who,  at  the  moment  of  his  plunging 
the  dagger  into  the  body  of  Henry  IV.  of  France,  and  for  a  long 
time  before,  was  persuaded  of  a  divine  monition  to  the  deed.  This 
man  gave  no  other  evidence  of  insanity,  and  could  have  had  no 
other  motive,  than  that  professed  by  him— the  preventing  of  a 
war,  judged  to  be  adverse  to  the  interests  of  the  Pope. 

NOTE  O.— Page  18. 
The  present  writer  will  not  return  the  charge  of  illiberalityj 
made  on  the  part  of  the  author  of  the  Reply,  by  a  heavier  charge^ 
but  hopes,  it  was  from  some  cause  not  easily  conjectured,  that 
he  delayed  his  comments  on  this  part  of  the  Essay,  to  the  conclu- 
sion of  his  own  production.  It  would  be  easy  to  show,  how  much 
depends  on  juxta-position.  Ptople  of  different  religious  societiesi 
become  distressed  under  the  weight  of  the  tenet  in  question;  taken 
up,  as  is  here  conceived,  not  from  the  reading  of  the  scriptures 
with  the  aid  of  prayer,  as  the  author  of  the  Reply  advises  the  con- 
gregations of  the  author  of  the  Essay  to  read  them;  but  from  un- 
scriptural  preachings  and  books.  The  author  of  the  Essay,  dis- 
claims reference  to  any  individuals  of  the  mcthodistick  persuasion: 
for,  although  the  society  were  incidentally  mentioned  under  the 
tenth  objection;  the  reader  was  there  referred  to  an  appendix,  for 
further  notice  of  them.  It  was  natural,  for  the  author  of  the  Reply 
to  make  a  similar  arrangement  of  his  matter.  His  not  doing  so, 
gives  an  aspect  to  the  passage  unintended  in  the  Essay.  That  it 
is  so  exhibited  in  the  Reply,  appears  in  the  circumstance,  that  the 


52  Mtes. 

author  of  it  describes  the  people  connected  with  him,  as  under 
accu'-ation  (p.  40)  and  as  pleading—"  JVo;  guilty."  He  might 
have  spared  his  remark,  against  arguing  from  particulars  to  gene- 
rals What  was  designed  as  argument  directly  bearing  on  the 
point,  is  arranged  under  ten  heads.  But  it  is  not  uncouimon,  after 
reasoning  against  a  dogma,  to  point  out  its  consequences. 

Although,  as  the  author  of  the  Reply  remarks,  "  recrimination 
is  no  defence;"  yet  it  would  not  have  been  unwelcome  to  the 
author  of  the  Essay,  had  the  other  entered  on  what  he  calls--"  a 
fair  comparison  of  the  practical  effect  of  the  oppo  ite  doctrine." 
This  may  be  stated  to  be,  that  a  man  is  to  know  his  safe  state,  only 
by  his  possessing  of  the  graces  of  the  Christian  character,  and  by 
their  effect  on  his  life;  taken  in  connection  with  the  declarations 
of  divine  mercy,  in  the  Scriptures:  which  are  now,  what  the  wit- 
nessing of  the  spirit  in  miraculous  gifts  was  to  the  first  Christians; 
it  being  the  same  witnessing  under  another  form.  If  this  doc- 
trine have  been  productive  of  evil,  it  is  more  than  has  come  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  present  writer. 

NOTE  P — Page  20. 

What  has  been  said  in  the  preceding  note,  may  be  applied  to  the 
notice  taken  by  the  author  of  the  Reply,  of  the  uses  contemplated 
by  the  Essay.  The  author  of  it  never  intended  to  charge  the 
methodists  with  "  reliance  upon  any  inward  teatimpny  formerly 
given,  but  now  suspended  by  a  state  of  sin."  Nor^ould  such  a 
sense  have  been  extorted,  but  by  the  dislocatidw  of  the  passage. 

When  the  sentiment  cited  from  Scougal  was  approved  of  by  the 
author  of  the  Reply,  '  e  does  not  seem  to  have  perceived,  that  the 
said  excellent  m  ui  held  ihe  test  delineated  by  him  to  be  theii^hest 
evidence  of  a  gracious  s(ate.  He  probably  considered  the  assur- 
ance of  an  angel,  as  more  weighty  than  an  impression  on  the 
mind.  At  any  rate,  his  test,  although  acknowledged  to  be  good 
as  far  as  it  went,  was  evidently  imperfect,  according  to  the  test 
laid  clown  by  the  autlior  ot  the  Reply,  in  this  place. 

The  same  author  (p.  42)  has  indulged  himself  in  sarcasm  on 
the  last  sentence  in  the  Essay.  To  prepare  for  this,  he  has  kept 
out  of  view  the  sentence  immediately  preceding;  and  even  an 
essential  part  of  the  sentence,  the  rest  of  which  he  has  quoted. 


Notes.  53 

Had  lie  given  it  fairly,  there  would  have  been  no  room  for  his 
anima<!version.  The  harnilessness  of  iheerrour  to  the  individual, 
was  made  dependent  on  conformity  to  the  test  laid  down  by 
Scougal.  Without  such  a  mutilation  of  the  passage,  it  would 
have  been  impossi*>le  to  display  it,  as  overturning  observations 
made  during  half  a  century. 

NOTE  Q.— Page  25. 

The  author  cf  the  Reply,  has  incidentally,  in  different  places 
of  it,  produced  a  few  of  the  many  texts,  which  he  thought  perti- 
nent to  his  purpose.  He  might  have  found  scores  of  them,  which 
have  as  m,uch  b^ruing  on  the  subject.  As  a  specimen,  there  shall 
be  exhibited  the  first  two:  and  let  it  be  remembered,  that  they 
are  intended  in  direct  proof  of  the  position  contradicted  in  the  title 
page. 

Luke  xi.  13.  *'  If  ye  then,  being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good 
gifts  unto  your  children;  how  m.uch  more  shall  your  heavenly 
father  give  his  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him?  '  No  question 
has  been  raised  of  the  efficacy  ot  prayer;  the  benefit  being  such, 
as  we  are  warranted  in  praying  for.  And,  as  to  the  mention  of 
the  Holy  Spirit;  the  introducing  of  it  is  an  additional  instance,  of 
a  tendency  to  confound  his  ordinary  with  his  extraordinary  opera- 
tions. If  the  latter  be  designed,  why  was  it  said — «<  The  Holy 
Ghost  was  not  yet  given,  because  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified?** 

1,  Cor.  ii.  12.  ♦'  Now  we  have  received  not  the  Spirit  of  the 
world,  but  the  Spirit  which  is  of  God,  that  we  might  know  the 
things  that  are  freely  given  to  us  of  God.*'  In  the  Essay,  there  is  no 
denial  ol  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  human  mind.  The 
question  relates  to  a  communication  specially  defined,  and  the 
alleged  qnanner  of  its  being  made.  What  we  know  of  the  things 
of  God,  should  be  known  both  notionally  and  experimentally: 
and  the  Essay  had  given  no  occasion,  to  introduce  the  respectable 
authority  of  Dr.  Doddridge  to  that  effect. 

It  is  thouglit  unnecessary  to  notice  the  other  texts;  and  especi- 
ally those  from  which  it  is  endeavoured  to  elicit  the  tenet  in  ques- 
tion, by  embodying  it  with  the  effusion  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost. 
Any  good  commentator  will  give  an  explanation  of  them,  wide  of 
the  application  in  the  Reply. 


54  .  J^otes. 

NOTE  R.— Page  26. 

It  is  thought  proper  to  state  the  ground,  on  which  the  author 
of  the  Essay  thought  it  no  reasonable  cause  of  offence,  to  refer  to 
the  theology  of  a  particular  denomination/ 

This  is  a  liberty,  which  it  is  customary  for  a  writer  to  take  with 
the  tenets  of  any  church,  for  the  elucidation  of  what  is  supposed 
to  be  religious  truth:  and  reasonably;  because  every  church  pub- 
lishes its  faith  to  the  world,  and  wishes  it  to  be  influential. 

There  is  no  church,  with  which  greater  license  ot  this  sort  is 
taken,  than  with  that  of  which  the  present  writer  is  a  minister: 
and  when  it  is  done  in  fair  argument,  and  not  rancorously  or  inde- 
corously as  sometimes  happens,  it  may  be  dissented  from,  while,  at 
the  act  itself  no  offence  is  taken,  so  far  as  is  here  known. 

In  the  following  appendix,  it  has  been  presumed  to  contradict 
a  tenet  of  a  large  body  of  professing  Christians.  The  tenet  is 
acknowledged  by  their  advocate  to  be  theirs.  If  he  has  denied 
some  statements  produced,  the  question  of  their  correctness  ought 
to  depend  on  evidence;  concerning  the  weight  of  which,  neither 
of  the  parties  c&n  make  himself  a  judge  for  the  other.  But  no 
aspersion  was  intended  either  of  the  body,  or  of  any  individual  of 
them:  although  there  must  be  confessed  to  be  the  appearance  of 
it  on  the  face  of  the  Reply;  owing  to  the  management  complained 
of  in  the  preface  and  in  the  last  note  but  one.  It  was  thus,  that 
the  author  of  the  Reply  found  an  opportunity  of  charging  the  au- 
thor of  the  Essay  with  being  "  not  only  unchajitable,  but  unjust." 

NOTE  S.— Page  26.  '  .- 

The  Rev.  John  Wesley,  is  represented  as  persecutedLip  the 
Essay  beyond  the  grave.  Is  there  in  it  an  expression  personally 
disrespectful  to  that  divine?  It  is  trusted,  that  there  is  not.  But 
when  opinions  are  published  to  the  world,  intended  to  have  and 
having  an  eflect  on  its  religious  state;  to  interdict  a  temperate 
discussion  of  them,  whether  the  promulger  be  deceased  or  living, 
would  be  the  taking  of  a  very  extraordinary  stand  in  relation  to  a 
favourite  character. 

The  author  of  the  Reply  thinks  (p.  31,  note)  that  there  is  incon- 
sistency in  objecting  to  Mr.  Wesley's  doctrine,  because  of  the 
dress  in  which  it  was  clothed.     If  this  be  all,  it  may  have  been  a 


Notes.  55 

g-iound  of  objection.  Sheuld  a  prince  so  dress  himself,  as  to  be 
mistaken  for  a  begt^ar;  or  a  woman  of  reputation,  so  as  to  be  mis- 
taken for  a  prostitute;  in  each  of  the  cases,  or  in  its  opposite,  the 
consequences  might  be  serious.  There  may  be  similar  miscon- 
struction of  doctrine. 

To  prove  that  the  tenet  in  question  was  a  new  doctrine,  either 
irt  substance  or  in  dress,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  appeal  to  Mr. 
Wesley  himself,  m  the  minutes  of  a  conference,  held  under  his 
superintendence  in  1770;  of  which  there  is  a  well  written  vindica- 
tion by  his  friend— the  Reverend  Mr.  Fletcher.  In  the  minutes, 
after  a  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  salvation,  «'  not  by  the  merit  of 
works,  but  by  works  as  a  conditien,"  it  is  asked — "What  have  we 
then  been  disputing  about,  these  thirty  years?"  The  answer  is — "I 
am  afraid,  about  words."  "  He  might  have  said,  I  am  sure  of  it,"  i$ 
the  remark  of  Mr.  Fletcher  (p.  68.)  The  round  number  of  thirty 
years  carries  back  so  near  to  the  time,  when,  according  to  the 
appeal,  the  denial  of  the  pulpits  was  owing  to  the  preaching  of 
inward  salvation  by  faith,  that  the  question  at  this  period,  must 
have  been  adjudged  at  a  later  period  to  have  been  a  dispute  about 
words.  At  least,  Mr.  Wesley  feared  its  having  been  so;  Mr. 
Fletcher  was  sure  of  it;  and  these  things  arc  said  in  a  work  written 
by  the  one,  and  countenanced  by  the  other.  This  being  the  case, 
there  is  not  the  inconsistency  in  the  author  of  the  Eisay,  although 
charged  on  him  in  the  Reply  (p,  32,  note)  of  "  at  the  same  time 
opposing  Ml.  Wesley's  doctrine,  and  maintaining  that  of  the 
Church  of  England."  If  there  be  any  errours  of  which  the  author 
of  the  Essay  supposes  himself  not  chargeable,  one  of  them  is  a 
departure  from  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  as  affirmed  in 
the  eleventh  article  of  his  church,  and  as  is  more  largely  explained 
in  "  The  ^Homily  of  Salvation,"  referred  to  in  the  article.  As  to 
Mr.  Wesley,  if,  for  a  long  course  of  years,  as  he  seems  to  concede, 
he  delivered  the  doctrine  in  such  a  dress,  or  with  such  adjuncts, 
or,  as  he  says  in  a  place  to  be  quoted  below,  by  "  tacking  to  them 
a  position  which  was  not  true" — a  fact  displayed  at  large,  in  "The 
Vindicaiion  of  the  Minutes;"  there  is  no  design  of  detracting  from 
the  merit  of  subsequent  acknowledgement  and  revocation. 

Praise  is  also  due  to  Mr.  Fletcher;  who  defends  the  said  minutes, 
on  the  ground  of  the  spreading  of  antinomian  principles, « like 


56  Notes. 

wild-fire,"  in  some  of  the  societies:  impliedly  the  effect  of  the 
enour  of  thirty  preceding  years.  He  goes  on  (p.  23—28)  lament- 
ing the  consequences,  in  the  abounding  of  carnal  confidence,  of 
ambition,  of  worldly  mindedness,  of  spiritual  blindness,  of  formaiity, 
of  the  neglect  of  relative  duties,  of  knowledge  without  experience, 
of  selfish  views,  and  of  the  want  of  heathen  morality.  Tht-re  is  too 
much  of  all  these,  under  every  form  of  profession.  What  they 
are  here  noticed  for,  is  the  acknowledged  cause  of  them,  in  an 
errour  confessed  to  have  its  origin,  about  the  time  when  Mr. 
Wesley  was  excluded  from  the  London  pulpits.  And  yet,  in  the 
appeal  printed  in  1738,  the  exclusion  is  said  to  have  been  owing 
to  "the  preaching  of  inward  salvation,  naw  attainable  by  faith.''  If 
it  mean,  as  the  words  seem  to  express,  justification  by  faith,  and 
deliverance  from  the  inward  dominion  of  sin,  attainable  by  the  in- 
fluence of  the  same  principle;  this  was  so  customarily  preached  in 
the  Church  of  England,  as  of  itself  to  render  it  probable,  that  there 
was  included  in  the  position  something  beyond  what  is  visible  \n 
the  letter  of  the  complaint. 

NOTE  T.— Page  28. 
On  the  question  of  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Whitehead,  the  com- 
petency of  his  authority  is  material.  Any  contradiction  of  his  state- 
ments, on  the  part  oi  the  society  to  which  he  belonged,  is  not  here 
known.  That  physician  was  one  of  three  persofls,  to  whom  Mr. 
Wesley  left  his  papers  by  will.  It  is  generally  v^derstood,  that 
after  the  other  two  had  surrendered  them  t(^ their  colleague,  for 
the  writing  of  the  life  of  the  deceased,  there  arose  a  controversy 
between  them;  partly  pecuniary,  but  principally  on  account  of  the 
biographer's  refusal  to  subject  his  work  to  their  conlf^.  His  ' 
disapprobation  of  the  secession  then  lately  made  in  Ameiica,  which 
appears  in  his  book,  may  account  for  its  not  having  the  stamp  of 
the  approbation  of  the  society.  Had  the  brother  of  the  deceased, 
the  Reverend  Charles  Wesley,  been  the  survivor  and  the  biogra- 
pher, the  same  objection  would  have  lain  For  when,  above  thirty 
years  ago,  he  put  into  the  hand  which  now  writes,  a  pamphlet 
issued  many  years  before  by  his  brother  and  himself,  contaming 
reasons  against  s«para.ing  from  the  Church  of  England,  he  said 
with  emphaais — These  are  so  many  reasons  against  what  has  bc-:n 


JSTotes.  57 

lately  done  in  America.  But  enough  of  this,  as  the  author  of  the 
Reply  has  not  directly  denied,  that  reliance  may  be  placed  on  the 
statements  of  Dr.  Whitehead. 

After  reconsidering  the  passapje  quoted  from  him,  containing  a 
thesis  in  a  letter  of  Mr.  Wesley  to  his  brother,  it  is  still  conceived, 
that  the  view  of  it  in  the  Essay  is  correct.  Mr.  Wesley  proposes 
.Ihe  question — Is  justifying  faith  a  sense  of  Pardon?  He  takes  the 
negative.  In  the  succeeding  discussion,  under  the  first  head,  he 
sets  forth  the  importance  of  the  question,  and  the  extreme  on 
each  side.  Under  the  second  head,  he  professes  to  define  justi* 
fying  faith  and  a  sense  of  pardon,  going  on,  in  the  words  quoted 
in  the  Essay,  to  deny  that  justifying  faith  is  an  assurance  of  par- 
don, or  necessarily  connected  therewith.  Under  the  third  head, 
he  gives  reasons  from  Scripture  and  experience.  Under  the 
fourth  and  last  head,  he  answers  objections;  the  third  of  which  is 
*-"  We  have  been  exceedingly  blessed,  in  preaching  this  doc- 
trine." The  answer,  which  ought  to  have  been  exhibited  by  the 
author  of  the  Reply,  is  especially  worthy  ot  notice.  It  is—"  We 
haye  been  exceedingly  blessed  in  preaching  the  great  truths  of  the 
gospel,  although  we  tacked  to  them,  in  the  simplicity  of  our  hearts, 
a  proposition  which  was  not  true."  What  was  this  untrue  propo- 
sition? It  was— "  Justilying  faith  is  an  assurance  of  pardon,  or 
necessarily  connected  therewith.'*  Compare  this  with  what  is  said 
in  the  appeal  (p.  2«)  "Faith  implies  assurance.**  Otlier  like  sayings 
might  be  produced.  Is  there  any  difTerence  of  sense,  in  those  two 
positions?  And  is  there  not,  in  each  of  them,  the  identical  doctrine 
which  was  preached  in  1738,  and  deliberately  revoked  in  174?'? 

Mr.  Wesley  goes  on  to  answer  an  objection,  grounded  on  what 
is  here  believed  to  be  a  misinterpreted  account  of  the  sense  of  the 
Church  of  England,  which  he  had  quoted  many  years  before,  as 
in  agreement  with  the  sense  of  the  matter  then  entertained  by  him, 
but  which  he  supposes  to  be  contrary  to  his  present  opinion.  Ac- 
cordingly, he  appeals  from  it,  to  "  the  law  and  the  testimony.** 

What  though  the  discussion  of  the  thesis  was  proposed  in  a 
skeleton,  to  be  filled  up  by  bis  brother:  the  outlines  must  be 
supposed  to  have  been  weighed  by  the  proposer;  and  especially  so 
must  have  been  the  result,  in  which  he  speaks  in  his  own  person. 


58  Notes, 

The  sense  of  Dr,  Whitehead  on  the  subject,  was  evidently  the 
same  with  that  of  the  author  of  the  Essay:  which  appears  in  the 
prefacing  of  the  latter  by  saying,  in  reference  to  the  unknown  per- 
son under  the  name  of  John  Smith—"!  think  it  had  some  in- 
fluence on  Mr.  Wesley's  mind."  Between  the  words  great  and 
5ome,  there  must  be  confessed  a  difTerence.  The  latter  ought  to 
have  been  in  the  Essay:  and  the  only  apology  of  the  author  for 
his  inaccuracy,  is  the  impression  on  his  mind  from  the  perusal  of 
the  work,  that  what  the  pen  of  an  intimate  friend  called  some, 
was  indeed  great.  Whether  there  be  cause  of  the  impression,  will 
be  seen  in  what  is  to  follow. 

Dr.  Whitehead  records,  that  in  the  month  of  July,  1747,  when 
Ml'.  Wesley  wrote  the  letter,  the  controversy  with  John  Smith 
was  drawing  towards  a  conclusion.  In  the  pages  immediately  prece- 
ding, there  are  minutes  of  four  conferences;  the  last  of  which  was 
in  June  of  the  same  year.  One  of  the  questions  is — "  What  is  faith?" 
The  answer,  after  defining  justifying  faith,  adds — "  Immediately 
the  spirit  bears  witness,  thou  art  pardoned,"  8cc.  If  this  be  not  a 
necessary  connexion,  what  words  could  have  been  more  expres- 
sive of  such  a  circumstance?  Under  the  answer  to  the  next  ques- 
tion, it  is  affirmed,  that  bo  n  an  r?>n  be  justified,  and  not  know  it. 
Let  this  be  compared  with  the  skeleton,  and  let  them  be  reconciled 
if  possible. 

If  the  skeleton  be  still  supposed  to  have  been  misrepresented, 
there  is  confirmation  of  the  sense  given  ot  it,  in  a  reproving  letter 
in  the  year  1768.  (Whitehead  vol.2,  p.  SlOj^to  a  preacher  of  the 
name  of  James  Morgan.  This  man  had  given  offence,  by  preach- 
ing that  all  mourning  penitents  were  in  the 'favour  of  God.  Mr. 
W*"sley  holds  to  tlie  general  rule — "They  who  are  in  the^vour 
of  God,  know  they  are  so."  But  he  concedes — "  There  may  be 
some  exceptions.  Some  may  fear  and  love  God,  and  yet  not  be 
clearly  conscious  ot  his  favour.  At  least,  they  may  not  dare  to 
affirm,  that  their  sins  are  forgiven."  Could  Mr.  Wesley  have  been 
now  of  the  same  mind,  as  when  he  said: — "Faith  is  a  sure  trust 
which  a  man  hath  in  God,  that  his  sins  are  forgiven?"  Or  when  he 
sanctioned  the  above  cited  minute  of  a  conference — "Immediately, 
the  same  spirit  bears  witness,  ihou  art  pJrdoned?" 


Notes,  59 

The  following;,  is  from  the  life  of  Mr.  Wesley  by  John  Hamp- 
son.  He  had  ceased  to  be  a  member  of  the  Society,  but  continued 
to  esteem  its  founder.  He  quotes  (vol.  3;  p.  50)  from  Mr.  Wes- 
ley thus—"  Near  fifty  years  ago,  the  preachers  were  not  sufficient- 
ly apprized  of  the  difference  between  a  servant  and  a  child  of  God« 
Ttiey  did  not  clearly  understand,  that  every  one  who  feareth  God 
•and  worketh  righteousness  is  accepted  of  him.  In  consequence 
of  this,  they  were  apt  to  make  sad  the  hearts  of  those,  whom  God 
had  not  made  sad.  For  they  frequently  asked  those  who  feare4 
God — "  Do  you  know  that  your  sins  are  forgiven?  And  upon 
their  answering  no,  immediately  replied — then  are  you  a  child  of 
the  devil  "  For  the  above,  Mr.  Hampson  quotes  Mr.  Wesley's 
Sermons,  without  noticing  the  place.  Accordingly,  the  pas- 
sage is  given  on  the  authority  of  the  said  biographer.  If  he 
be  correct,  and  if  we  set  aside  all  question  as  to  the  distinction 
between  a  servant  and  a  child  of  God;  can  it  be  conceived,  that  Mr. 
Wesley  would  have  written  in  this  manner,  before  the  correspon- 
dence with  John  Smith? 

In  Mr.  Wesley's  Journal,  November  27th,  1750,  published  in 
1756,  he  enumerates  sundry  faults  found  by  him  with  the  doctrines 
of  the  "  Unitas  Fratrum."  The  fourth  point  is — "  That  there  is 
no  sitoh  thing  as  degrees  in  faith,  or  weak  faitb;  since  he  has  no 
faith,  who  has  any  doubt  or  fear."  It  is  added—"  How  to  reconcile 
this  with  what  I  heard  the  Count  say  at  large,  that  a  man  may 
have  justifying  faith,  and  not  know  it,  I  cannot  tell."  In  the 
Essay,  there  is  noticed  the  contrariety  of  Count  Zinzendorf's  tes- 
timony to  that  of  Peter  Bohler,  and  Mr.  Wesley's  adherence  to 
the  latter.  Is  there  no  evidence,  that  he  had  changed  his  ground? 
The  question  of  the  consistency  of  the  Count,  is  irrelative  to  the 
present  purpose. 

The  i*elevancy  of  what  foUoirs,  must  depend  on  the  correctness 
of  the  reasoning  of  the  writer,  from  the  facts  to  be  staled:  which 
have  weight  on  his  mind,  disposing  to  the  admission  of  the  positive 
evidence  offered,  to  prove  there  having  been  a  change  in  the  mind 
of  Mr.  Wesley. 

In  bis  appeal  (p.  10)  he  notices  as  follows—"  Infants  indeed  our 
church  supposes  to  be  justified  in  baptism,  although  they  cannot 


60  JVotes. 

then  either  believe  or  repent.  But  she  expressly  requires  boti* 
repentance  and  faith,  in  those  who  come  to  be  baptized  when  they 
are  of  riper  years.'*  Consistently  with  this,  he  makes  the  follow- 
ing entry  in  his  journal,  in  the  year  1738 — "I  believe,  till  I  was 
about  ten  years  old,  I  had  not  sinned  away  that  washing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  was  given  me  in  baptism."  And  his  friend  Mr. 
Fletcher,  above  forty  years  afterwards,  slates  more  at  large  (vol. 
2,  p.  149  and  195)  the  doctrine  of  justification  of  infants  in  baptism, 
precisely  as  it  appears  in  the  institutions  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. It  seems  to  follow,  that  during  the  opening  of  the  under- 
standing of  an  infant  child  of  God,  and  during  the  progress  of  a 
religious  education,  and  during  continuance  in  grace  as  in  the 
case  of  young  Wesley— and  who  can  say,  that  his  integrity,  or 
another's  in  a  like  state,  might  not  have  continued — it  is  impossible 
there  should  take  place  a  species  of  atsurance,  declared  to  be 
given  with  an  incipient  state  of  grace,  and  with  that  only.  The  in- 
ference is,  that  of  the  two  opinions,  one  of  them  must  eat  out  the 
other.  The  work  of  Mr.  Fletcher,  must  have  had  the  approbation 
of  Mr.  Wesley.  Concerning  the  first  check,  it  is  said  in  the  pre- 
face to  the  second,  that  he  had  read  it  in  manuscript,  and— let  it 
be  noticed  to  his  honour — that  he  had  expunged  every  tart  expres- 
sion. How  far  this  statement  should  have  weight  on  the  present 
question,  must  be. left  to  the  judgment  of  every  reader. 

If  Mr.  Fletcher,  in  saying  (p.  83)  as  quoted  in  the  Essay,  with 
many  things  to  the  sime  effect,  and  (two  pages  after)  in  describ- 
ing the  lamentable  courses  of  many,  conseqi^nt  on  their  declara- 
tions that  they  were  justified  and  sanctified  in  a  moment,  did  not 
lay  less  stress  on  assurance  of  an  immediate  communication  of 
pardon,  than  had  been  laid  on  it  in  the  original  professionJ^e  has 
expressed  himself  in  terms  very  liable  to  be  misunderstood: 
which  ought  not  to  be  easily  admitted,  of  so  clear  headed  a  writer. 
One  passage  from  him,  was  given  in  the  Essay:  which  was  pru- 
dently passed  over  in  the  Reply;  it  being  very  little  in  unison  with 
the  commendation,  of "  the  precious  and  evangelical"  tendency  of 
the  doctrine. 

Without  travelling  further  into  the  work  of  Mr.  Fletcher,  it 
may  sufAce  to  take  up  the  matter  as  delfvered  by  Jonathan  Crow* 
•  her.    The  author  of  the  Reply  Bays  (p.  36)  that  exceptions  prove 


Notes,  6i 

the  rule.  Yes;  where  the  exceptions  themselves  are  first  esta- 
blished. But  there  are  some  rules,  admitting  of  no  exception:  ab— • 
"  This  is  the  love  of  God,  that  we  keep  his  commandments:'* 
and — "  Let  no  corrupt  connmunication  proceed  out  of  your  mouth." 
The  rule  cited  in  the  Reply—"  He  that  belicveth  not  shall  be 
damned,"  must  have  bee«  intended  of  those  only,  in  whom  the  ex- 
ercise of  faith  was  possible.  It  was  no  more  possible  to  ideots  and 
infants,  who  aie  mentioned  as  exceptions,  than  to  sheep  or  horses. 
The  Reply  defines  the  exceptions  of  Jonathan  Crowther,  as 
comprehending  bare  possibility.  This  does  not  seem  to  be  the 
meaning.  To  begin  with  ignorance.  If  this  be  an  exception  in 
any  instance;  it  must  especially  apply,  where  the  knowledge  of 
there  being  such  a  test  is  wanting.  If  the  distinction  had  been 
admitted  by  Mr.  Wesley,  how  safely  might  he  have  abstained  from 
the  self-reproach,  of  having  been  a  Pharisee  through  so  long  a 
tract  of  time !  In  the  whole  of  which,  although  spending  much  of 
his  time  in  the  study  of  the  scriptures,  and  in  prayer  for  the  right 
understanding  of  them,  he  does  not  appear  to  have  heard  of  the 
matter  in  question,  until  he  learned  it  from  Peter  Bohler.  When 
learned,  it  took  such  firm  possession,  as  not  to  yield  to  the  con- 
trary instruction  of  his  superiour— Count  Zinzendorf. 

The  article  of  bodily  complaints,  must  be  supposed  to  include 
such  as  rest  on  the  nervous  system:  which  has  so  great  an  influ- 
ence on  the  movements  of  the  mind,  as  to  dispense  with  all  con- 
cern in  the  business  in  a  numerous  class  of  persons. 

The  violence  of  temptation  is  so  indefinite  an  expression,  that 
it  is  difficult  to  know  what  sort  of  persons,  if  their  religious  de- 
sires be  otherwise  correct,  may  not  hold  the  impression  to  be  un- 
necessary in  their  cases.  For  every  man  knows  "  the  sore  of  his 
own  heart,"  and  no  other  man  can  judge  of  the  force  of  hi&  temp- 
tation.    I 

In  regard  to  all  these  impediments,  it  seems  unreasonable  to 
suppose,  that  they  can  be  bars  against  the  energy  of  a  communi- 
cation from  "  the  Father  of  our  Spirits."  It  was  no  part  of  the 
original  theory  of  Mr.  Wesley;  nor  can  it  now,  consistently,  be  a 
part  of  the  theory  of  those,  who  consider  exception  as  a  bare  pos- 
ifibility. 


02  Notes, 

Concerning  the  note  on  Dr.  Clarke's  Commentary,  the  author 
of  the  Essay  will  not  return  to  the  author  of  the  Reply  his  com- 
pliment of  the  thick  fog.  It  will  be  more  consistent  with  the  ideas 
of  decorum  entertained  by  the  former,  to  say  that  the  latter,  un- 
der the  astonishment  which  he  confesses  to  have  seiied  him,  has 
misunderstood  the  kind  of  inconsistency  intended  to  be  affirmed. 
It  consisted  of  a  doctrine  originally  preached  without  the  limits,  to 
which  it  was  now  submitting.  It  does  not  follow,  that  the  majority 
may  not  adhere  to  the  doctrine  in  its  first  shape.  If  this  be  the 
case,  which  is  neither  affirmed  nor  denied,  the  greater  is  the  in- 
consistency of  the  esteem  in  which  Mr.  Wesley's  later  as  well  as 
earlier  positions  are  held;  and  of  the  approbation,  which,  it  is  said, 
is  extended  to  the  work  of  Jonathan  Crowther.  When  Dr.  Clarke, 
after  quoting  the  words  "  with  our  spirits,"  puts  as  synonomous 
"  to  our  understanding,"  it  is  as  much  as  saying,  that  the  words 
admit  of  being  so  translated;  which  is  not  correct.  As  to  what 
follows  in  the  same  note,  of  the  influence  thereby  exercised  over 
the  operations  of  the  soul  generally,  the  same  may  be  the  effect  of 
what  comes  through  the  medium  of  the  senses.  If  the  author  of 
the  Reply  possess  such  a  knowledge  of  the  Greek,  as  to  be  able 
to  show,  that  "  understanding"— call  it  either  translation  or  inter- 
pretation— answers  to  «  spirit"  in  the  English  Bible,  he  will  add 
to  the  publick  stock  of  criticism.  Or,  if  he  can  make  out  the  use 
of  the  word  by  Dr.  Clarke,  to  be  the  same  with  that  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, as  follows;  it  will  be  the  discovery  of  an  agreepnent  not  very 
obvious.  V 

For  Mr.  Wesley's  translation,  to  which  he  the  most  inclined, 
although  he  says  he  will  not  contend  for  it,  there  may  be  reference 
to  Jonathan  Crowther's  Portraiture,  p.  165.  The  favour«^||rans- 
laiion,  not  supp»rted  by  the  original,  is  "  beareth  witness  to  our 
spirits;"  which,  in  the  next  page,  is  clearly  distinguished  from  the 
rational  testimony  of  our  own  spirits,  and  said  to  precede  it.  If  this 
be  not  to  combine  two  witnesses,  or,  what  is  in  effect  the  same, 
to  ascribe  to  one  the  testimony  predicated  concerning  both,  how 
could  it  have  been  done  more  significantly?  It  is  true,  that  Mr. 
Wesley  goes  on  to  speak  particularly  of^the  rational  testimony  of 
our  own  spirit,  and  to  sustain  it  by  texts.     But  there  is  not  one  of 


Notes,  63 

them,  that  has  an  especial  bearing  on  an  incipient  state  of  grace. 
Therefore,  in  that  crisis,  there  must  be  a  combining  of  two  wit- 
nesses; or  else  a  confining  to  one  of  what  is  said  of  both,  in  order 
to  constitute  the  testimony  in  question.  This  is  without  any  fault- 
ing of  Dr.  Clarke's  construction  of  the  pronoun  "  ctvre"  which  is 
conceived  to  be  correct.  The  word  "  ear"  was  a  typographical 
crrour.  The  nonsense  of"  ear  said,"  would  have  been  considered 
by  most  Repliers,  as  excusing  them  from  any  remarks  predicated 
on  an  opposite  construction. 

NOTE  U.— Page  31. 
While  the  author  of  the  Essay  is  desirous  of  acknowledging  in 
the  most  explicit  manner,  that  he  has  unintentionally  given  a  par- 
tial quotation  of  what  Mr.  Wesley  transcribed  from  "  The  Homily 
of  Salvation;"  it  seems  the  more  surprising,  that  after  an  accurate 
quoting  of  the  Homily,  and  thus  qualifying  the  reader  to  judge  of 
the  correctness  of  the  interpretation,  he  should,  a  few  lines  below, 
give  a  defective  summary  of  the  very  passage  he  had  been  reciting. 
He  quotes  as  follows— ."The  right  and  true  Christian  faith  is,  not 
only  to  believe  the  holy  scriptures  and  the  articles  of  our  faith 
are  true;  but  also  to  have  a  sure  trust  and  confidence,  to  be  saved 
from  everlasting  damnation  through  Christ."  Of  this,  Mr.  Wesley 
says  to  his  opponent—"  You  are  a  member  of  the  Church  ot  Eng- 
land.—Are  you?  Then  hear  the  Church.  Faith  is  a  sure  trust  which 
a  man  hath  in  God,  that  his  sins  are  forgiven."  Is  there  no  dif- 
ference between  the  Homily,  and  the  construction  thus  given? 
The  latter,  makes  faith  to  consist  in  the  sense  of  forgiveness.  The 
former,  lays  down  the  ground  of  the  subject  in  scripture,  and  the 
articles  of  our  faith.  It  is  impossible,  under  a  right  knowledge  of 
these,  to  exercise  faith  and  repentance;  and  not  entertain  a  sure 
tpust,  in  tihe  mercy  of  God  through  Christ. 

NOTE  v.— Page  32. 
It  has  not  a  little  confirmed  the  present  writer  in  his  opinion  of 
the  incorrectness  of  the  controverted  position,  that  on  many  occa- 
sions of  stating  his  objections  to  persons  with  an  opposite  bias, 
they  have  combated  them  in  his  presence  and  in  subsequent  re- 
port, by  identifying  them  with  other  matters;  from  the  imputation  of 


64  Notes, 

which,  his  most  positive  declarations  have  not  been  sufficient  to 
relieve  him.  Into  this  track  they  are  conceived  to  fall,  often 
ivith  the  best  intentions;  partly  from  the  law  of  association,  which, 
in  their  minds,  connects  the  favourite  tenet  with  every  thing  spi- 
ritual in  religion;  and  partly  from  the  untenableness  of  it,  when 
brought  to  the  test  of  scripture.  Hence,  the  denying  of  it  is  said 
to  be  the  denying  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin~of  inward  salvation — 
of  vital  godliness,  &c. 

It  is  more  remarkable,  that  there  should  be  the  same  errour  in 
the  deliberate  writing  and  printing  of  a  pamphlet.  But  the  miscon- 
struction is  chargeable  on  the  Reply.  What  else  could  have  occa- 
sioned the  author  of  it  to  hold  up  the  author  of  the  Essay,  as 
denying  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  making  the  gospel 
"  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation"  (p.  S) — as  setting  aside  the  ne- 
cessity of  knowing  the  things  of  God,  both  notionally  and  experi- 
mentally (p.  1 2) — of  favouring  the  want  of  ieeling  of  the  pardon  of 
sin,  such  as  would  have  been  the  cases  of  the  Parlytick  and  Eneas^ 
in  the  not  being  sensible  of  their  cures  (p.  15) — of  making  light  of 
the  conversion  of  the  heart  (p.  9)— and  ot  considering  baptism  as 
evidence  of  grace,  sufficiently  satisfactory  (p.  5^0.)  All  these  are 
now  disavowed,  and  it  is  denied  that  they  are  in  the  Essay:  and 
yet,  if  the  Reply  were  stripped  of  every  thing  of  the  sort,  and  of 
the  observations  founded  on  them,  it  would  be  reduced  to  a  very 
small  size. 

The  first  of  the  said  erroneous  tenets,  the  author  of  the  Reply 
seems  especially  desirous  of  fastening  on  the  author  of  the  Essay. 
And  yet,  it  is  directly  contradicted  in  a  passage,  on  the  page  next 
to  that  which  was  the  subject  of  remark.  Ttig-same  stands  in  this 
republication,  at  the  head  of  page  9th.  _ 

On  the  last  of  the  same  tenets,  the  author  of  the  Reply  (p.  20) 
has  again  shown  his  management  of  italicks.  The  words  in  the 
Essay  are — «» Evidence  sufficiently  satisfactory,  of  the  grace  pro- 
mised to  accompany  it.**  No  grace  is  promised  to  any  other  adults, 
than  such  as  are  penitent  and  believing.  With  the  help  of  italicks, 
put  to  the  preceding  part  of  the  clause,  the  eye  is  drawn  from  the 
words  which  follow,  fiy  this,  the  mind  becomes  prepared,  in  the 
next  sentence  but  one,  for  what  is  unhesiTatingly  given  as  the  opi- 
nion of  the  Essay,  that  "baptism  is  an  evidence  of  inward  grace, 


JVotes.  Q5 

sufficiently  satisfactory:^'  there  being  left  out  the  circumstance  of 
promise,  which  might  have  recalled  the  attention  to  the  intended 
objects  of  it.  It  is  in  this  part  of  the  Reply,  that  the  author  of  the 
Essay  is  suspected  of  the  want  of  sfiirituat  discernment;  a  talent 
not  to  be  coveted,  in  the  sense  of  being  occupied  as  above.  The 
preceding  charge  has  not  yet  spent  itself:  for,  with  the  repetition 
bnthe  23d  page,  that  "  baptism  alone  is  evidence  sufficiently  sa- 
tisfactory,' it  is  made  a  ground  of  the  iRfereHce- that  "  every 
charge  to  self-examiRation  might  have  been  spared,  and  every 
reference  to  the  fiuita  of  righteousness,  as  evidences  of  a  religious 
state."  This  is  fair  reasoning;  and  not  the  sophistry,  which  is 
one  of  the  articles  of  accusation,  brought  against  the  author  of  the 
Essay.  But  while  he  acknowledges  the  correctness  of  the  inference, 
he  is  not  envious  of  the  s/iiritual  discernment,  which  made  the 
fancied  discovery  of  the  premises. 

From  the  repetitions  of  the  aforesaid  passage  of  the  Essay,  in 
a  mutilated  state  in  the  Reply,  there  is  ground  for  the  suspicion, 
that  the  author  of  the  latter  was  especially  desirous  of  loading  the 
former  with  the  stigma,  of  arrogating  to  the  mere  ceremony  of 
baptism,  the  power  of  conferring  grace.  Let  there  then  be  again 
noticed,  although  at  the  expense  of  repetition,  the  occasion  sup- 
posed to  have  been  given.  The  person  spoken  of  is  Saul,  formerly 
a  sinner,  but  now  penitent  and  believing.  This  case  being  con- 
templated, the  proposal  of  Ananias,  recorded  in  Acts  xxii.  16,  was 
stated  to  be  sufficient  ground  of  an  assurance  of  forgiveness,  with- 
out an  inward  voice  to  the  effect.  The  author  of  the  Reply,  rejects 
this  expression.  Let  it  be  abandoned,  although  furnished  by  Mr. 
Wesley,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  extract  from  hini  by  Jonathan 
Crowther,  p.  168,  1.  24.  Let  there  be  taken  "  impression,"  or  any 
other  word  of  the  same  founder  of  the  society.  But  let  there  not 
rest  the  imputation  of  extending  the  remark  to  any  person,  in  a 
state  of  known  sin. 

The  taking  of  such  courses — that  is,  the  identifying  of  the  de- 
nial of  the  tenet  with  extraneous  matter;  although  there  may  not 
always  be  the  accompanyments  which  the  author  of  the  Reply  so 
liberally  employs;  is  here  conceived  to  be  the  only  way,  in  which 
the  tenet  itself  can  be  plausibly  maintained.  The  author  would 
consider  it  as  a  failing  in  himself;  were  he  possessed  of  much 


66  Notes, 

sensibility  on  the  subject.  But  he  does  not  affect,  to  be  indifferent 
to  it.  The  Reply  notices,  that  passages  of  authors  may  be  cited, 
without  due  regard  to  connexion.  This  happens,  sometimes  by 
mistake,  and  sometimes  by  design.  Whether  by  mistake  or  by 
design,  it  is  seldom  so  glaring  as  in  him'who  makes  the  remark, 
when  he  cites  the  authorities  of  Dr.  Paley  and  Dr.  Buchanan,  in 
order  to  aggravate  the  charge  of  the  dispensing  with  the  conver- 
sion of  the  heart.  The  same  fault  is  still  more  unjustifiable,  '^  hep 
he  strips  sentences  of  clauses  essential  to  their  respeclive  senses; 
of  which  the  resul*^,  so  far  as  can  be  accomplished,  is  the  loading 
of  the  accused  party  with  the  odium  of  denying  truths,  acknow- 
ledged by  him  habitually  in  the  use  ot  the  offices   of  his  Church. 

There  reiay  be  errours  in  the  making  of  quotations,  which  tie 
writer  of  this  ought  to  be  the  more  ready  to  concede,  on  account 
of  an  errour  made  by  himself,  in  the  quoting  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
although  not  having  the  effect  of  ascribing  to  him  any  opinion 
which  he  can  be  supposed  not  to  have  entertained.  But  when,  as 
at  present,  mutilations  of  sentences  are  many,  and  uniformly  tend- 
ing to  lay  the  charge  of  opinions  inconsistent  with  the  integrity  of 
the  Christian  faith, it  must  be  consolatory  to  a  mind  not  wishing  to  be 
uncharitable,  that  the  author  of  the  Reply  has  laid  the  ground  of 
an  apology  for  himself,  in  his  professing  not  to  understand  the 
phraseology  of  the  author  of  tlie  Essay:  in  whom,  it  would  be 
rash  to  calculate  the  degree  of  the  obscurity  of  his  perfor* 
mancb'. 

He  does  not  know,  whether  such  allowance  i^ght  not  to  be  claim- 
ed by  himself,  in  his  interpreting  of  the  controverted  position,  as 
maintained  by  Mr.  Wesley.  The  said  eminent  man,  however 
generally  intelligible,  has  given,  at  different  times,  what  sj^jun  to 
be  such  different  views  of  the  same  subject,  that  perhaps  he  may 
have  been  occasionally  misunderstood.  In  the  appeal,  faith  itself 
is  defined  to  be  assurance  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  In  a  work 
quoted  by  Jonathan  Crowther  (p.  162,  1.  4)  assurance  is  said  to 
be  "  of  the  essence  of  faith,  or  rather  a  property  thereof."  To  be 
of  the  essence  of  the  subject,  is  not  exactly  the  same  with  the  be- 
ing itself:  and  to  be  a  property  ol  it,  supposes  the  existence  of  the 
subject  to  which  the  other  ib  superaddecf.  An  impression,  is  still 
further  from  the  original  definition:  because  the  fact  of  forgiveness 


Notes.  67 

must  exist  in  the  Divine  mind,  before  there  can  be  made  an  im- 
pression of  it  from  that  source,  on  the  mind  of  the  person  forgiven. 
When  at  last  it  comes  to  the  point  stated  in  the  Skeleton,  that 
assurance  is  not  necessarily  connected  with  faith,  the  original 
matter  is  removed  beyond  the  reach  of  an  ordinary  understanding. 

Perhaps^  even  the  author  of  the  Reply  found  some  difficulty  in 
determining  at  what  spot  to  take  his  stand,  on  the  ground  of  these 
minute  distinctions.  He  has  not  proceeded  with  Mr.  Wesley,  to 
the  last  mentioned  of  his  opinions:  but  he  has  gone  (p.  33)  to  the 
extent  of  acknowledging  a  difference  between  the  doctrine  of  jus- 
tifying faith,  and  that  of  the  sense  of  pardon.  This  cannot  be  called 
the  last  thought  in  his  pamphlet;  but,  in  imitation  of  the  talent  for 
comparison  displayed  in  the  last  paragraph  but  one,  the  liberty  is 
taken  of  considering  it  as  the  best  thought.  In  the  said  paragraph, 
although  there  is  a  mutilation  of  the  last  sentence  in  the  Essay, 
it  was  not  with  the  design  of  making  the  author  odious.  The  only 
design,  in  this  instance,  was  to  render  him  ridiculous.  To  accom- 
plish this,  it  was  necessary  to  disengage  the  sentiment  from  two 
qualifications,  intended  to  accompany  it.  It  ought  in  justice  to  be 
noticed,  that  these  may  have  been  overlooked,  during  the  astonish- 
ment in  which  the  author  of  the  Reply  confesses  himself  to  have 
been  thrown  on  this  occasion,  as  on  another. 

Had  he,  on  recovery,  reviewed  the  passage,  he,might  have  per- 
ceived a  warrant  for  it,  in  what  St.  Paul  has  said  (1.  Cor.  iii.  1 1 — 
15)  in  his  comparative  valuation  of  different  materials,  laid  on  the 
same  foundation.  On  the  ground  of  this  authority,  there  shall  now 
be  a  repetition  of  the  last  sentence  in  the  Essay,  enlarged  in  lan- 
guage, but  not  in  sense;  and  for  the  aiding  of  the  apprehension  of 
the  author  of  die  Reply,  with  the  qualifications  which  he  has  over- 
looked, made  the  more  conspicuous  by  being  printed  in  italicks. 
The  astonishing  sentiment  is,  that  should  an  advocate  of  the  re- 
jected tenet,  be  fiosaeased  of  the  fruits  of  the  Sfiirit  in  his  heart 
and  in  his  life,  his  opinion  will  not  exclude  him  from  the  covenant- 
ed mercies  of  the  gospel,  although  it  may  not  be  harmless  in  its 
influence  over  others. 


ERRATA, 

Page  7,  line  from  bottom  6,  wanting  "  — ." 

10,  2,  for  "  Etheopean"  read  "  Ethiopian." 

13,  20,  wanting  "  — ." 

16,  last  line,  for  "  eared"  read  "  feared." 

35,  line  from  bottom  2,  comma  misplaced. 

41,  line  1,  for  "  word"  read  "  work." 

43,  Une  23,  for  «  truth"  read  "  tenet." 


For  Sale,  by  Meses  Thomas, 

The  following  Works  of  the  same  Author: 

Lectures  on  the  Catechism  of  the  Prostestant 
Episcopal  Church:  with  explanatory  Disser- 
tations.  1  vol.  8vo.  ^^      * 

AND, 

Comparative  Views  of  the  Controversy  be^een 
the  Calvinists  and  the  Arminians.  %  vols* 
8vo. 


REVIEW 


QUESTION  OF  A  PERSONAL  ASSURANCE 

OF 

PARDON  OF  SIN, 

BY  A  DIRECT  COMMUNICATION  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT; 

^S  AS  ES8AX  AND  NOTES  ON  THE    SUBJECT;  AND  IN  A    HEPLY    AND     A     FAHTHEB 
REPLY  TO  THE  SAME: 

THE  TWO  LAST  BEING  UNDER  THE  SIGNATURE  OF 
JOHJSTEMORT, 

A  MINISTEB  OF  THE  GOSPEL,  OF  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHXTHCP, 
WITH 

AN  APPENDIX, 

ON  THE  NOTICE  OF  THE  SUBJECT,  IN  THE  QUARTERLY 
REVIEW  BY  THE  REV.  E.  S,  ELY,  A.  M. 

BY  Wm.  white,  D.  D. 

SISHOP  OF   THE    PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL     CHTJIICH,  IN    THE    COJIJIONWEALTH  05" 
PENNSYLVANIA. 


FHILADELPHM: 

PUBLISHED     BY     MOSES    THOMAS,      NO.     52,    CHESTNUT      STBEET. 

rrinted  at  the  Office  of  the  United  States'  Gazette. 
1818. 


PREF\CE. 

That  the  present  pamphlet  is  a  review  of  the  three 
pamphlets  preceding  it,  is  owing  to  a  persuasion  on  the 
mind  of  the  author,  of  its  being  the  best  way  of  sustain- 
ing the  object  of  the  essay:  an  opportunity  being  thus 
given  of  showing,  how  lightly  some  material  points 
have  been  touched^  and  how  some  have  been  overlook- 
ed on  the  other  side;  and  of  putting  out  of  view  mucli 
matter,  that  has  no  bearing  on  the  question.  In  fact,  the 
author  is  of  opinion,  that,  if  so  disposed,  he  might  ex- 
press unqualified  assent  to  the  greater  part  of  the  "Far- 
ther Reply,"  without  the  surrender  of  a  particle  of  his 
own  argument. 

As,  in  the  preface  to  his  former  pamphlet,  he  decli- 
ned the  degrading  of  the  congregations  under  his  care, 
by  complying  with  a  call  to  bring  their  concerns  before 
the  publick;  he  now  extends  the  determination  to 
the  Episcopal  Church  at  large;  which  the  replier,  in  his 
second  work  [p.  26—29]  has  thought  proper  to  hold 
up  to  view,  in  a  disadvantageous  comparison  with  the 
body  of  professing  christians  to  which  he  belongs.  But, 
the  present  author  is  considered  as  having  thrown  the 
first  stone.  This  is  not  so;  and  it  is  evident,  that  if  the 
Jreplier  so  construed  the  second  appendix  to  the  Essay, 
he  did  not  calculate  on  its  being  perceived  by  his  reader^! 


IV 

which  appears  ia  his  disjoining  of  the  appendix  from  its 
proper  place.  No  one  will  deny  the  privilege  of  a  writer, 
to  chuse  the  arrangement  of  his  work.  The  complaint 
is,  that  there  was  a  deviation  from  the  form  chosen,  in  a 
single  instance;  not  to  be  accounted  for,  by  any  thing 
on  the  face  of  the  transaction;  other  than  the  giving  of 
the  appearance  of  an  attack  on  a  body  of  people,  to 
what  was  written  in  reference  to  a  single  point  in  their 
religious  system. 

The  consideration  of  heavy  charges  against  the  or^ 
thodoxy  of  the  Essay,  having  been  forced  on  the  au- 
thor of  itf  there  may  be  propriety  in  this  place,  to  say- 
something  of  the  attendant  personality. 

The  Farther  Replier  considers  it  as  a  circumstance  ta- 
king off  the  edge  of  personality ,  that  he  was  answering  an 
anonymous  pamphlet.  Had  there  been  a  desire  to  remain 
unknown — which  was  not  the  case-;— such  secrecy  was 
prevented  by  sufficient  intimation  of  the  person,  without 
the  mention  of  his  name.  That  an  mdividual  was  in 
view,  is  evident  over  the  whole  fourth  page  of  the  reply- 
He  is  described  as  a  person  advanced  in  years;  as  ha^jpg 
ministered  to  the  same  people  through  a  long  course  of 
time,  and  in  page  13,  he  is  thought  to  be  "high  in  office:"* 
terms  doubtless  designed  to  be  expressive  of  his 
presiding  in  the  church  of  which  he  is  a  minister^ 
These  things,  taken  in  connexion  with  a  reference  td 
J    the  Episcopal  Church  all  along,  left  no  doubt  as  to  the 


object  of  the  attack.  Besides,  it  is  supposed  capable  of 
proof,  that  the  authorship  had  been  communicated  on 
credible  authority.  Under  these  circumstances,  it  was 
hardly  worth  while  to  reject  responsibility  for  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  name  in  the  newspapers;  although  in  this 
there  would  have  been  more  consistency,  had  there 
been  accounted  for  its  appearing  in  several  papers,  du- 
ring several  successive  days.  In  all  this,  whatever  may 
have  been  the  indecorum,  there  would  have  been  no 
injury;  but  for  the  groundless  constructions  to  be  noticed 
in  their  proper  places,  and  still  contended  to  be  correct- 
ly fastened  on  the  Essay. 

The  author  has  reached  a  period  of  life,  when  he 
ought  to  be  able  to  say  like  St.  Paul — "  With  me,  it  is  a 
very  small  thing  that  I  should  be  judged  of  you,  or  of 
man's  judgment."  But  it  is  something,  although  com- 
paratively very  small,  and  it  has  not  escaped  attention, 
not  only  that  the  charges  of  the  Replier  will  be  read  in 
this  city,  by  many  who  will  never  read  the  answers  to 
them;  but  also  that  they  will  travel  to  districts,  in  which 
-not  a  copy  of  the  answers  will  appear. 

In  the  preface  to  the  former  pamphlet,  the  author  pro- 
fessed the  design  of  avoiding  the  retaliation  of  incivility. 
But  the  "Farther  Reply,"  [Note  to  p.  15]  adduces  an 
instance,  in  which  it  is  intimated,  that  the  line  of  conduct 
has  been  departed  from.  It  is,  where  the  bad  effect  of  a 
serious  charge, was  apprehended  [Notes,  page  34]  on 


VI 

the  minds  of  those  who  would  take  it  on  the  credit  of  the 
Replier.  The  author  supposes  it  not  too  much  to  expect, 
that  among  people  to  whom  he  has  been  ministering 
forty  five  years,  his  avowing  in  print  of  sentiments  in 
contrariety  to  what  he  has  been  delivering  to  them  from 
the  pulpit  and  otherwise,  through  that  long  tract  of 
time,  would  not  be  believed  on  the  credit  of  a  stranger. 
At  the  same  time,  it  was  not  overlooked,  that  many,  not 
entertaining  eidier  favourable  prejudice  or  the  contrary 
towards  either  of  the  parties,  would  be  relnctant  to 
suppose  of  any  minister  of  the  Gospel,  his  preferring  of 
such  charges  against  any  other  minister,  without  at 
least  specious  ground  for  the  procedure.  This  took 
place  in  sundry  instances  for  a  time,  and  was  soon  cor* 
rected,  as  the  author  has  been  credibly  informed. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  in  reference  to  the  credit  of 
the  Replier,  that  how  far  his  charges,  in  the  judgment 
of  charity,  ought  to  be  ascribed  to  mistake,  w^  left  at 
large.  Even  if  it  should  be  conceived,  that  the  faulty 
spirit,  often  generated  by  controversy,  lirad  its  operation 
in  the  case;  there  would  not,  necessarily,  be  the  cha"?|fe 
of  intended  falsehood.  It  is  a  matter  not  in  itself  im- 
possible, that  this  spirit  may  have  generated  personal  re- 
sentment, where  the  parties  have  been  otherwise  un« 
known  to  one  anotlier. 


A  REVIEW 


THE  CtUESTION,  <^c. 

Section  1. — Of  the  title  of  the  Essay, 

IT  denied  the  position  of  a  personal  assurance  of  the 
pardon  of  sin,  by  a  direct  communication  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  property  of  "direct"  was  to  distinguish 
from  another  species  of  satisfaction,  noticed  not  far  be- 
low, in  which  there  is  explicitly  confessed  the  agenty 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  property  of  "personal"  was  tQ 
distinguish  the  contradicted  assurance,  from  those  cases 
of  it  in  scripture  which  were  personal,  but  through  the 
medium  of  the  senses.  This  species  of  personal  assu- 
rance, seemingly  imputed  to  the  author  but  rejected  by 
him,  was  any  thing  which  may  be  imagined,  like  those 
instances  of  it  from  the  mouth  of  the  Saviour  in  person. 
The  replier  triumphs,  in  having  gained  an  acknowledg- 
ment to  the  above  effect.  But  there  would  not  have  ap- 
peared any  ground  for  this;  if  there  had  been  thought  a 
call  to  give,  with  the  acknowledgment,  the  following 
words  designed  to  qualify  it.-— "He  did  not  deny  the  ap- 
plication of  the  benefit  to  the  individual  believer,  on 
the  general  ground  of  the  promises  of  the  gospel;  with 
his  knowledge  of  the  state  of  his  own  mind,  and  under 
the  ordinary  operations  of  the  Holy  ^Spirit"  [Essaj- 
page  9.] 


In  regard  to  the  benefit,  it  is  attempted  in  the  Farther 
Reply,  to  fasten  on  the  author  an  inconsistency  with 
what  he  had  said  in  a  former  publication,  which  speaks 
of  a  drawback  in  proportion  to  experience  of  deficiency. 
The  meaning  is,  that  in  the  promises  of  God,  there 
should  be  confidence  without  reserve;  but  that  in  pro- 
portion to  deficiency,  there  should  apply  the  admonition 
— "Let  him  that  thinketh  he  standeth,  take  heed  lest 
he  fall."  For  the  sake  of  any  reader,  who  may  wish 
further  exposition,  there  shall  be  here  a  reference  to  a 
lucid  one  given  by  Dr.  Witherspoon,  vol.  1.  p.  176. 

There  may  be  degrees  of  the  assurance  on  the  latter 
point  mentioned  above,  but  not  on  the  former;  which  is 
the  species  contended  for  on  the  other  side,  and  to  be 
without  drav/back,  in  compliance  with  the  terms  *'assu- 
rance"  and  "much  assurance,"as  supposed  (ibid)  to  be 
distinguished  in  scripture.  There  is  no  such  distinction 
there.  It  was  stated  in  the  Essay  [page  23]  on  what  is 
here  supposed  the  uncontradicted  authority  of  Dr. 
Campbell,  that  the  word  translated  "full  and  much  assu- 
rance," always  means  either  conviction  or  accomplish- 
ment. "Assurance"  is  not  from  any  word  of^he  same 
root;  and,  as  an  affection  of  the  mind^is  commonly  de- 
noted by  the  words  expressive  of  beljief. 

Section  2. — Of  the  state  of  the  question. 
It  is  announced  in  the  second  paragraph — "indepen- 
dently on  personal  application,"  meaning,  not  that  there 
existed  such  independency;  but,  that  for  the  space  of  a 
few  lines,  and  for  the  sake  of  distinctness,  the  connex- 
ion of  the  two  subjects  was  to  bejjut  out  of  view*'  Tho 


second  sentence  of  the  paragraph,  is  an  ampUficatlon  of 
the  first;  and  although  the  former  has  been  treated  as  not 
having  any  bearing  on  the  latter,  it  is  by  a  very  singu- 
lar species  of  criticism.  In  the  second  paragraph,  there 
comes  in  the  question,  as  it  relates  to  application  to 
person:  and  as  one  of  the  concurring  grounds  of  satis- 
faction was  the  consciousness  of  the  party;  the  short 
discussion  does  not  conclude,  without  recognising  it  to 
be  "produced  by  the  suasive  and  insensible  operations 
of  the  Holy  Spirit;  of  which  we  are  no  otherwise  con- 
scious than  through  the  medium  of  the  gracious  habits 
of  the  mind,  any  more  than  we  have  the  knowledge  of 
the  wind,  except  by  its  agency  in  nature." 

Nothing  further  appearing  of  the  displeasure  of  the 
replier  with  the  word  "insensible"  as  introduced  in  this 
place;  it  may  be  hoped  that  he  apprehends  the  meaning, 
and  is  reconciled  to  the  use  of  it.  In  the  Reply,  it  was 
treated  as  indicative  of  material  errour. 

The  second  paragraph,  has  been  here  considered  in 
connexion  with  the  initiatory  sentence  of  the  former  one,, 
in  order  to  show  the  entire  want  of  ground  in  the  impu- 
tation to  be  noticed.  In  this  first  paragraph,  the  Essay, 
speaking  independently  on  personal  application,  which 
was  to  be  provided  for  below  in  the  second  paragraph, 
goes  on  to  say — "It  is  the  gospel,  as  contained  in  Holy 
Scripture,  which  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation; 
and  the  ktiowledge  of  this  gospel,  is  brought  to  us  in  the 
same  way  with  that  of  any  other  subject."  Here  it  is, 
that  there  comes  in  the  charge  of  the  unsoundness  of  the 
author.  He  added,  indeed,  in  order  to  show  that  he  Was 
speaking  of  the  outward  word  only —"For  faith  cometh 
by  hearing."  The  Farther  Reply  pleads,  that  this  being; 


10 

only  a  reason  of  what  went  before,  there  was  no  obliga- 
tion to  repeat  it.  The  obligation  is  not  affirnned  on  any 
other  jjround,  than  that  it  would  have  enabled  the  reader 
to  judge  of  the  merits  of  the  imputation.  What  avails 
the  stress  laid  on  the  word  "for?''  as  if  the  reason 
given  for  an  affirmation,  may  not  be  explanatory  of  it. 
There  is  a  set-off,  in  the  author's  having  omitted  the 
words  of  St.  Paul — "To  every  one  that  believeih."  They 
made  no  part  of  his  intended  statement  of  a  single  ques- 
tion, in  the  next  paragraph.  In  distinguishing,  whatever 
is  superfluous  tends  only  to  embarrass.  The  author, 
never  contemplated  the  denying  of  the  agency  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  act  of  faith.  Had  he  been 
of  that  mind,  he  might  have  brought  in  the  words 
with  the  mental  reserve  of  a  Pelagian;  and  might  have 
recollected,  that,  according  to  his  theory,  faith  is  produ- 
ced by  the  unassisted  action  of  the  natural  powers  of 
man. 

The  bolder  step  of  adding  to  the  terms  of  the  Essay, 
is  repelled  by  the  repL'cr  in  his.  second  work,  by  alleging 
that  it  was  the  deduction  of  his  own  argument  in  the 
first.  The  words  are — "tlie  knowledge  of^other  sub- 
jects may  be  attained  to" — implying  the  knowledge  of 
thi^  subject  also — "without  the  inHiience  of  the  Holy 
Spirit."  Had  this  been  given  as  the  deduction-^ the  - 
repiier,  and  not  as  the  sense  of  the  essaj,  ist,  there  would 
have  been  no  pertinency  in  the  commeni,  that  the  know- 
led  <je  in  question  may  be  attained  to  by  "men  of  cor- 
ruj-i  minds  and  reprobate  concerning  the  faith."  Who 
knows  not,  that  a  charge  may  be  made  in  the  form  of 
an  inference? 


11 

There  is  the  more  notice  to  be  taken  of  this  way  of 
writing,  as  it  appears  often  on  the  faces  of  the  two  re- 
plies. The  way  is  this — the  replier,  in  the  beginning  of 
his  remarks  on  some  point,  states  it  in  the  words  of 
the  person  against  whom  he  vmtes.  But  in  the  issue,  he 
brings  in  the  contradicted  principle,  still  holding  it  up  as 
maintained  on  the  other  side;  and  by  a  small  but  im- 
portant variation  of  the  words,  not  likely  to  be  noticed 
by  any  other  than  a  very  attentive  reader,  gives  a  differ- 
ent complexion  from  that  intended. 

There  shall  be  given  an  instance  similar  to  the  above, 
and  on  the  present  subject.  The  Farther  Repl)  (pige  13) 
taking  it  up,  not  as  in  the  Essay  and  earlv  in  the  notes, 
but  as  briefly  glanced  at  in  noie  V.  (page  64)  vindicates 
himself  against  the  charge  of  "representing  the  author 
of  the  Essay  as  denying  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  making" — the  meaning  in  the  Kssay  is  the 
Koly  Spirit's  making,  and  not  the  author's  makin^^ — 
"the  gospel  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation."  The 
replier  ascribes  to  the  words  an  absurd  sense,  not  intend- 
ed; and  then  as  if  to  fix  it,  varies  the  sentence  to — on 
account  qfhxs  holding  &c.  The  words  in  italicks,  are 
not  the  author's;  but  they  help  to  give  the  air  of  unrea- 
sonableness to  a  supposed  sense,  which  ascribed  a  very 
improbable  censure  to  the  pen  of  the  replier. 

To  return  to  the  charge  in  question:  why  should 
he  have  exercised  his  ingenuity  on  clauses  of  sen- 
tences and  on  words,  in  order  to  find  out  a  sense  in  con- 
trariety to  what  was  before  him,  in  language  not  to  be 
misunderstood,  of  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  man's 
salvation.  It  appears  in  two  places  in  the  beginning  of 
the  Essay;  and  more  fully,  in  the  last  paragraph  of  the 


IB. 

second  appendix  to  it.  Independently  on  those  passages 
directly  to  the  point;  the  charge  is  sustained  by  such  a 
wire-drawing,  as,  if  applied  to  the  scriptures,  might  con- 
vict them  of  heresy  in  innumerable  places:  particularly 
in  the  only  two  passages,  as  yet  under  notice— of  both 
which  it  might  be  pretended,  that  the  apostle  meant  no 
more  than  such  a  gospel,  as  is  attainable  by  men  of  cor- 
rupt minds,  and  received  by  such  a  hearing,  as  is  given 
in  schools  and  colleges;  a  meaning  charged  by  the  replier 
on  the  present  writer,  on  no  better  ground.  For  the 
apostle  has  not  guarded  against  misconstruction,  by  the 
mention  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  these  places. 

The  replier's  charge  of  the  author's  want  of  fidelity 
in  his  ministry,  appears  (page  4)  in  the  deduction  of  a  cer- 
tain doctrine  from  the.terms  of  the  title  of  the  Essay,  and 
in  an  appeal — introduced  in  the  not  uncommon  form 
of  inquiry — to  the  fact  of  its  not  being  preached  by 
him  who  held  it.  An  admonition  to  do  this,  was  fairly 
considered  as  implication;  especially  when  taken  with 
the  reference  to  an  Aquila  or  a  Priscilla,  to  qualify  for 
the  work.  The  Farther  Reply  [page  7]  distinguishes 
between  the  positive  and  the  hypothetical:  the^latter  of 
which  only,  is  applied  to  the  religious^^tate  of  the  con- 
gregations, with  which  the  essayist  is  ^.connected.  But 
does  not  every  one  know,  that  it  is  common  to  insinm|^e 
reproaches  not  to  be  misunderstood,  under  the  forms 
of  hypothesis?  If  any  one  can  construe  the  words — 
<'By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them" — taken  in  their 
connexion,  in  any  other  sense  than  as  containing  a  cau- 
tion against  the  essayist  to  his  hearers,  let  the  replier 
have  the  full  benefit  of  whatever  judgment  and  impar- 
tiality may  belong  to  the  construer.  Let  the  same  bo 


13 

.  conceded  to  the  interpretation  of  any  person,  who  can- 
not perceive  the  charge  of  unfaithfulness,  when  the  re- 
pHer  on  his  third  page  * 'supposed" — if  the  word  be  pre- 
ferred to  "alleged" — the  belief  of  a  certain  species  of 
assurance:  when  on  the  next  page,  he  intimated,  that,  if 
preached,  there  must  be  the  fruits  of  it  among  the  hear- 
ers: and  when  he  asked — "Is  this  the  case" — adding, 
**thc  friends  of  this  doctrine  will  be  very  happy  to  learn 
that  it  is." 

The  Farther  Replier  denies,  that  he  either  alleged  or 
supposed.  That  he  did  not  use  the  words,  is  conceded. 
But  that  he  made  an  effort  to  prove  it  by  his  manage- 
ment of  italicks,  is  manifest.  The  species  of  proof  is 
no  longer  continued:  but  it  remains  on  record  in  the 
Reply. 

In  another  place,  the  author  is  charged  with  inaccu- 
racy more  properly.  The  Farther  Replier  [page  15. 
N.]  truly  affirms  that  the  advice  on  the  subject  of 
prayer,  stated  in  the  notes  [page  51]  was  not  given. 
The  advice  is  always  good;  but,  if  it  had  been  given  as 
incorrectly  stated,  would  not  have  been  well-timed. 
The  impression  was  too  hastily  admitted,  from  an  ex- 
pression on  the  25  page  of  the  reply. 

The  author  did  not  consider  as  offensive,  the  charge 
of  being  theologically  obscure  to  strangers.  He  wouM 
rather  wish  to  receive  instruction  on  the  point,  although 
it  may  be  too  late  in  life  for  profit.  But  he  does  not  per- 
ceive any  connexion  between  this,  and  the  obscurit)^ 
referred  to  in  the  Farther  Reply  [page  8]  manifested  in 
his  having  been  misrepresented  by  well-intentioned  per- 
sons, as  denying  in  conversation  forgiveness  of  sin,  vi- 
tal godliness,  &:c.  The  fact  was  better  accounted  for 


14 

[page  64]  from  an  accidental  association  of  ideas.  The 
differences  between  the  subjects  were  thought  very 
clta'-,  ai  hough  known  to  be  confounded  from  that  cause 
by  certain  descriptions  of  persons:  among  whom,  how- 
ever, he  did  not  expect  to  find  a  person  coming  for- 
wards, wiihout  contradiction,  as  the  mouth  of  a  nume. 
rous  sociecv — -see  reply,  page  40,  two  last  lines. 

In  like  manner  as  above,  some  people,  still  with  the 
best  inttntions,  represent  the  use  of  forms  of  prayer,  as 
necessarily  destitute  of  every  thing  spiritual  in  the  exer- 
cise; others  charge  their  Christian  brethr'::n,  with  de- 
crving  meetings  for  the  special  purpose  of  prayer, 
when  the  thing  objected  to  is  a  species  of  prayer,  not 
accounted  either  rational  or  scriptural;  and  others 
would  even  deny  there  being  any  spiritual  influence  on 
either  the  prayers  or  the  preachings  of  the  replier  him- 
self, merely  because  he  has  set  times  for  those  exercises; 
and  especially,  if  he  should  avow  the  revolving  of  the 
subjects  of  them  previously  in  his  mind. — It  is  not  from 
real  obscurity  on  the  points  respectively.  At  an  early 
period  of  the  life  of  him  who  now  writes,  he  was  in  dan- 
ger of  being  considered  as  an  atheist,  by  an  ag^d  woman 
not  wanting  in  esteem  for  him;  for  no  t!rther  reason,  than 
that  in  relation  to  some  recent  incidents  related  by  her 
as  unequivocally  the  deeds  of  witchcraft,  he  cndeavour- 
ed  to  convince  her  that  there  was  no  such  art,  and  that 
the  facts  might  be  traced  to  natural  causes.  It  was  the 
result  of  a  false  association  of  ideas,  as  in  the  other  cases. 

Section  3.     Of  the  test  of  ArchhisJwp  Usher. 
The  substance  of  it  is,  that  a  man,  conscious  of  the 
exercise  of  faith  and  repentance,  li^ay  infer  on  the  war- 


15 

ratit  of  the  promises  of  God  in  scripture,  that  his  sins  are 
pardoned.  The  position  on  the  other  side  is,  that  there 
must  be  what  is  called  sometimes  an  impression,  some- 
times a  voice,  sometimes  a  feeling,  sometimes,  as  in  the 
Reply  [page  6]  a  consciousness,  and  always  a  some- 
thing direct  and  personal  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  the 
effect.  The  replier  professed  to  hold  the  subject  not  in 
contrariety  to  Usher,  but  in  accordance  with  him.  It 
was  answered,  that  to  make  out  this,  he  ought  to  have 
.  shown,  not  merely  that  he   does  not  contradict  the  test 
given,  but  that  lie  has  not  added  to  it,  thereby  represent- 
ing it  to  be  insufficient.  This  interpretation  is  not  con- 
troverted in  the  "Farther  Reply;"  but  there  is  produced 
a  passage  from  the  same  work  of  the  pious  and  learned 
prelate,  which,  if  the  construction  were  admitted,  would 
prove  him  inconsistent  with  himself.  The  place  given, 
docs  not  either  speak  of  or  imply  a  direct  and  personal 
communication   of  the  Holy   Spirit.    It  is  "  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  in  the  hearts  of  God's  children," — yes,  in  their 
hcartS)  through  the  medium  of  what  he  produces  there 
* — "the  pledge  of  Christ's  preference, — the  witness  of 
their  adoption — the  guide  of  their  life — the  comforter 
of  their  soul — the  seal  of  their  redemption — the  first- 
fruits  of  their  Salvation."  Can  any  conceive,  that  these 
things  have  a  bearing  on  the  question  of  a  direct  commu- 
nication? If  there  should  be  such,  let  them  attend  to 
the  next  question  and  answer  [page  86]  concerning 
>  which  it  is  to  be  hoped,  that  although  so  near,  they  did 
not  meet  the  eye  of  the  Farther  Replier. — "But  how 
are  you  assured,  that  you  have  the  Spirit?"  says  the 
archbishop,  precisely  to  the  present  point.  "Answer: 


i6 

because  it  hath  convinced  my  judgment — converted  mf 
soul — and  having  mixed  the  word  with  my  faith" — evi- 
dently in  that  conviction  and  conversion,  from  which 
faith  cannot  be  separated-^"it  has  become  as  life  to 
quicken  me— as  water  to  cleanse  me — as  oil  to  cheer 
me — as  fire  to  melt  and  refine  me."  It  will  be  pertinent 
to  remark  the  coincidence  of  the  train  of  sentiment  of  the 
archbishop,  with  that  of  his  church  in  the  homily  of 
Whitsunday.  The  author  will  not  hesitate  to  add — 
with  his  own  sentiments,  as  delivered  on  the  first  page 
of  his  former  work. 

Bishop  Pearson  is  again  introduced  in  the  Farther 
Reply  [page  14  ]  The  author  stated  in  his  notes 
[page  49]  that  this  sensible  prelate,  under  the  first  arti- 
cle of  the  creed,  had  given  an  account  of  faith;  and 
under  another  article  had  explained  forgiveness  of  sin, 
in  ways  inconsistent  with  the  opposite  theory.  When 
the  Farther  Replier,  without  notice  of  these  facts,  can 
permit  himself  to  present  from  the  same  work  another 
passage;  it  may  be  left  to  speak  for  itself,  under  the 
general  remark  that  it  is  nothing  to  the  purppse. 

One  of  the  last  authors  expected  to  have  l^een  pro- 
duced in  favour  of  the  position  is  Dr.  Mammond,  as  his 
name  appears  in  a  note  of  page  77.  If  any  should  doubt 
of  the  contrariety  of  the  sentiments  of  this  divineto 
the  position  in  the  title  page,  there  might  be  referee 
to  many  passages  in  his  commentary:  but  notice  shall  be 
confined  to  the  thirteenth  paragraph  of  his  short  post- 
script on  divine  illumination  prefixed  to  it.  The  quota- 
tion on  the  otlier  side,  has  no  bearing  on  the  subject* 


Section  4.  Of  the  Essayist's  first  objection  to  the 
Position 
This  objection  \vas  grounded  on  the  fact,  that  John 
tlie  Baptist,  although  the  object  of  his  commission  was 
to  preach  the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of 
sills,  never  intimated  such  a  test  of  it,  as  is  contended 
for  on  the  other  side.  This  is  not  contradicted;  but  it  is 
alleged,  that  he  pointed  to  the  Messiah's  future  baptism 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  was  remarked  in  answer,  that 
on  such  a  ground,  all  the  saints  of  old  arc  left  without 
the  benefit:  for  as  to  the  distinction  between  a  less  and  a 
gTcater  degree  of  clearness;  it  has  not  only  no  place  in 
♦lie  promise  of  what  happened  at  Pentecost,  but  leaves 
behind  the  question  of  assurance.  Here  is  a  difficulty, 
not  attempted  to  be  resolved  by  any  of  the  texts  in  the 
"Farther  Reply,"  extending  from  page  46  to  50. 
There  is  however  among  them  one  text,  having  espe- 
cial relation  to  the  ministry  of  the  baptist.  It  is  [Luke 
1.  77]  "To  give  knowledge  of  salvation  unto  his  j)eo- 
ple^  by  the  remission  of  tlieir  sins,"  and  it  is  contended, 
that  an  experimental  knowledge  is  contemplated.  Cer- 
tainly, none  other  is  available:  but  may  not  theoretick 
knowledge  fall  on  minds,  which  the  other  shall  never 
reach?  Else,  what  shall  we  make  of  the  saying  of  St  Paul 
[1  Cor.  8.  i.]  "knowledge  pufFeth  up,  but  charity  edi- 
fyeth?"  If  this  should  be  unacceptable  from  the  present 
pen,  let  the  same  be  taken  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Dod- 
dridge; where,  paraphrasing  the  text  from  St.  Luke,  he 
has  it — "To  give  the  knowledge  of  eternal  salvation  to 
his  people,  in  directing  them  how  they  are  to  obtain  the 
forgiveness  of  their  sins."  To  be  made  to  know  the  way 
is  one  matter:  to  reach  the  benefit,  is  another, 
c 


18 

Section  5,      Of  the  second  objection. 

It  afilrmed,  that  the  position  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
discourses  of  our  Saviour.  There  is  nothing  produced 
to  the  contrary,  except  those  places  in  the  gospel  of  Sto 
John,  in  which  the  Saviour  promises  what  was  accom- 
plished at  Pentecost.  It  would  be  tedious  repetition,  to 
go  on  to  prove,  under  each  of  these  texts,  that  it  is  irre- 
lative to  the  subject. 

But  it  is  contended,  that  in  the  case  of  Kneas,  Acts  9. 
34  and  of  course  in  similar  cases  in  the  gospels,  there 
must  have  been  an  inward  sense  of  pardon.  Who  doubts 
it?  The  question  is,  whether  the  said  inward  sense  may 
not  have  been  produced  by  the  speech  of  the  Savi- 
our, or  of  an  Apostle,  taken  in  by  the  ear?  This 
is  a  point,  which  does  not.  come  within  the  no- 
tice of  the  Replier.  As  to  the  agency  of  the  Holy- 
Spirit  in  the  way  of  application,  it  is  wide  of  the  ques- 
tion of  direct  communication. 

In  the  passage  under  review,  what  is  meant  by  the 
feeling  of  Eneas?  If  it  be  of  his  bodily  cure,  it  is  foreign 
to  the  purpose.  Ifitbeofthe  forgiveness  of  his  sins, 
there  is  not  a  word  concerning  it.  T|ig  probitbility,  per- 
haps the  presumption  may  be,  that  this  was  so:  in  which 
case,  his  repentance  and  faith  must  be  presumed 
also.  All  tlicse  things  being  presumed,  it  was  nJl^ft'al 
that  he  should  have  a  joyful  feeling,  consequent  on  his 
new  state.  But  there  is  a  manifest  diflTerence  between 
this,  and  the  feelings  being  the  evidence  of  his  pardon 
and  the  warrant  for  his  assurance;  which  is  the  matter 
understood  on  the  other  side. 

Under  this  head,  there  arose  the  question  between  the 
two  litigants,  as  to  the  admission  of  more  causes  than 
are  necessary  to  an  effect.    There  is  a  philosophical 


19 

maxim,  forbiddintf  this.  When  the  autlior  supposed  the 
meaning  of  the  maxim  to  be  obvious,  he  thought  the 
terms  were  so.  When  he  expected  them  to  be  obvious 
to  students  of  theology  in  particular,  he  meant,  not  the 
terms,  but  the  truth  of  the  proposition,  as  an  axiom 
nat  requiring  proof:  for  it  is  the  shape  in  which  it  meets 
the  eye,  in  systems  of  natural  science.  That  the  mean- 
ing  of  the  words  themselves  were  out  oFthc  view  of  the 
Replier  while  he  was  writing,  appears  in  his  continually 
confounding  of  the  tao  ideas  of  a  single  cause  and  a  suf- 
ficient cause.  He  now  [page  19]  rests  the  correctness 
of  his  statf  ment  on  the  14th  and  15th  pages  of  "The 
Reply."  Cn  those  pages,  the  present  author  is  wiilinp- 
to  rest  the  propriety  of  his  own  statement.  There  are 
two  cases;  in  the  former  of  which,  neither  of  the  given 
forces  was  equal  to  the  effect;  and  in  the  latter,  botli 
were  contemplated  as  necessary  by  divine  wisdom:  and 
yet  in  each  case,  there  is  held  to  be  a  contradiction  of 
the  maxim,  that  no  more  causes  are  to  be  admitted, 
than  the  effect  in  question  requires  What  is  especiallv 
remarkable,  in  the  first  of  the  above  instances,  the  fall 
of  a  house  is  supposed  to  be  owing  partly  to  winds  and 
floods,  and  partly  to  the  insufficiency  of  its  foundation: 
whereas  the  maxim  relates  entively  to  divine  age;  ey,  and 
has  no  bearing  on  any  effect,  to  which  the  unskilfulness 
or    he  ignorance  of  man  contributes. 

The  Farther  Replier  thinks  [page  16]  that  he  has  re- 
torted the  author's  maxim  on  himself,  in  the  case  of 
Eneas — the  outward  assurance  rendering  the  inward 
feeling  superfluous.  There  is  still  a  misunderstanding. 
The  feeling  supposed  to  have  been  possessed,  must 
have  been  the  effect,  and  not   the  cause.  The  author's 


20 

use  of  the  word  "impossible"  for  "superfluous,"  was 
an  unimportant  inaccuracy;  because  according  to  his 
views,  which  were  undertaken  to  be  given  in  that  place, 
superfluous  and  impossible  were  the  same.  The  whole 
argument  on  the  other  side  went  on  the  presumption,  that 
^n  inward  feeling  consequent  on  assurance,  cannot  be  the 
effect  of  an  outward  declaration  of  it:  or  why  was  this 
represented  as  designed  principally  for  the  conviction 
of  the  beholders,  and  not  for  the  satisfaction  of  the 
patient? 

It  is  asked  [page  16]  Why,  if  the  author  of  the 
Essay  admits  an  inward  and  spiriiEual  feeling,  does  he 
not  avow  it?  He  thought  he  had  avowed  it  on  the  first 
page  of  the  Essay,  in  speaking  of  being  satisfied  of  an 
interest  in  the  promises  of  the  gospel;  on  the  next  page 
but  one,  in  speaking  again  of  a  satisfaction  which  could 
have  been  none  other  than  spiritual;  and  in  the  labt  page 
of  the  performance:  for  how  can  there  be  any  other 
than  a  spiritual  possession,  of  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit 
spoken  of?  The  "Farther  Reply,"  on  the  next  page, 
goes  on  in  such  a  way,  as  to  manifest  a  confounding  of 
feeling  consequent  on  the  pardon  of  sin,  wi^^i  evidence 
of  the  fact  supposed  to  be  bottonTfed  on  feeling.  It 
should  be  remembered,  that  the  for-mer  of  these  was  not 
the  subject  of  the  Essay;  which  was  limited  to  th^^is- 
proof  of  the  errour  of  thf  latter. 

Jf  the  opponent  of  the  Essay  can  satisfy  those  con- 
cerned, that  he  has  not  contradicted  Mr.  Wesley  and 
Mr.  Fletcher,  in  affirmii.g  on  the  eighteenth  page  of  his 
former  pamphlet,  that,  assurance  being  the  work  of 
God,  the  smner  has  no  need  to  be  told  of  it,  with  a 
yiew  to  its  being  sought  by  him;  it  is  here  a  matter  of 


21 

indifference.  But  let  it  not  be  admitted  that  the  se- 
cond pamphlet  [page  20]  is  correct  in  representing  as 
the  sense  of  one  of  the  notes  to  the  Essay,  that  accord- 
ing to  the  said  two  divines,  the  communication  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  work  not  of  God,  but  of  the  sinner. 
•  If  any  other  reader  can  elicit  the  same  reproach  from 
the  following  words  in  note  F  [page  41]  let  him  have 
the  full  benefit  of  his  ingenuity — "Be  it,  that  the  giving 
of  the  personal  assurance  must  be  the  work  of  God:  the 
endeavouring  to  obtain  it,  is  represented  as  resting  with 
men."  Then  for  evidence  of  this  fact,  there  is  reference 
to  the  divines  of  the  Westminster  confession;  and  to 
Arminian  divines,  especially  Mr.  Wesley  and  Mr, 
Fletcher 

It  is  to  be  lamented,  that  there  has  been  so  much  to  say 
of  a  philosophical  axiom,  brought  incidentally  into  the 
question.  This  would  probably  not  have  happened,  if 
there  could  have  been  drawn  from  the  discourses  of  the 
Saviour,  any  thing  which  had  an  evident  bearing  on  the 
controversy. 

Section  6. — Of  the  third  objection. 
It  is  the  non-appearance  oi  the  position,  in  the  acts  of 
the  apos'les — especially  its  being  wanting  in  that  of 
Cornelius,  that  of  the  Kthiopian,  that  of  the  jailor;  and 
further,  in  the  addresses  to  the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  In  all 
this,  there  is  snppc^sed  to  be  a  set-off  in  Acts  2.  4 — 5, 
9.  31 — and  11,  16.  There  is  not  a  syllable  in  them, 
which  applies  to  any  other  subject  thaa  that  of  Pente- 
cost, except  ill  the  second,  where  the  comfort  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  spoken  of.  Let  that  passage  be  taken  with  the 
comment  given  in  connexion  with  it.  There  is  nothing 


inconsistent  with  this  declaration,  in  the  Essay  or  in  the 
notes  to  it.  If  the  "Farther  Reply"  had  copied  from  a 
concordance  all  the  texts  which  have  a  reference  to  the 
Holy  Ghost  or  Spirit,  and  given  ponin7ents  on  them 
from  approved  authors;  the  whole  might  have  been 
made  as  much  to  the  purpose,  as  the  text  above  given. 

The  case  of  St.  Paul,  unexpectedly  to  him  who  ad- 
duced it,  has  produced  a  question  on  the  subject  of 
baptism.  He  has  said,  that  this  divinely  instituted  sign 
was  considered  by  Ananias — evidendy  meaning  in  alli- 
ance with  the  repentance  and  faith  of  Saul — sufficient 
evidence  of  grace  promised  to  accompany  it. 

By  what  process  of  mind,  the  place  of  Ananias  vv'as 
taken  possession  of  by  Saul,  in  the  imagination  of  the 
opponent,  is  not  here  within  the  sphere  of  conjecture. 
In  the  passage  referred  to,  the  former  was  the  speaker; 
and  the  latter  passed  no  judgment  on  the  subject.  What 
the  Essay  said  of  a  particular  case,  has  been  under- 
stood to  be  a  general  position.  Not  only  so,  the  "Far- 
ther Reply,"  in  a  way  of  writing  against  which  the  rea- 
der has  been  already  cautioned,  after  a  deduction  of  its 
own,  brings  in  the  issue  not  as  its  own  deducti^,  but 
as  the  doctrine  of  the  essayist,  thus — "HeViaintains  that 
baptism  alone  is  sufficiently  satisfactory ;  ai>d  that  no  more 
causes  are  to  be  looked  for,  than  are  siiilicient  for  tl^ 
effect."  He  never  maintained  any  such  thing,  detached 
from  the  state  of  a  known  individual;  although  he  acknow- 
ledged it  to  extend  to  all  fit  recipients.  The  affirmed  uni- 
versality of  the  proposition,  is  the  consequence  of  sepa- 
rating a  sentence  from  that  immediately  precedii^g  it: 
which  led  to  the  disregard  of  the  distinction  between 
the  cause  of  any  eftect;  and  a  circumstance  of  the  sub- 


ject,  by  which,  of  itself,  the  effect  could  never  have  been 
produced. 

Section  7. — Of  the  fourth  objection. 

It  relates  to  the  paucity  of  texts  found  even  in  the 
epistles;  although  the  subjects  are  sometimes  such,  as 
produced  incidentally  sayings,  which  may  be  drawn 
aside  to  the  purpose  of  the  position. 

Of  the  texts  in  the  "Farther  Reply,"  that  which 
takes  the  lead  is  Rom.  8.  16.  So  much  has  been  said  of 
it  in  the  first  appendix  to  the  Essay,  that  it  shall  not  be 
here  discussed  again.  But  it  is  worth  the  while  of  a  cu- 
rious reader  to  notice  the  constructions,  interfering  with 
one  another,  of  those  who  hold  it  so  important  to  their 
theory.  Mr.  Wesley  [Crowther  page  165"]  prefers  the 
translation — "To  our  spirits,"  although  he  says  he  will 
not  contend  for  it  Here  is  one  witness  only:  but  Dr« 
Coke  in  his  commentary  calls  for  two  witnesses;  although 
under  the  testimony,  he  does  not  comprehend  the  mi- 
raculous eilusion,  as  do  Doddridge  and  others;  Dr^  A* 
Clarke,  varying  from  both  Mr.  Wesley  and  Dr.  Coke, 
states  the  testimony  of  the  spirit  as  given  in  the  intellec- 
tual fticulty.  Siich  is  the  issue  of  plans  of  interpretation, 
resulting  from  disregard  of  the  drift  of  the  argument  of 
the  apostle:  which  was  to  prove  to  the  Jewish  christians, 
that  tlieir  brethren,  the  Gentile  christians,  had  been 
owned  by  the  common  Father  of  both,  in  the  effusion  of 
miraculous  gifts:  an  effusion,  which  under  the  ordinary 
operation  of  the  spirit,  had  also  manifested  itself  ii^  its 
holy  influences  on  the  minds  of  the  latter,  by  a  child-like 
confidence  suited  to  the  beneficent  spirit  of  the  gospel; 
and  illustrating  its  superiority  to  the  preparatory  dispen- 
sation of  the  law. 


Answer  to  note  of  the  "Farther  Reply,'*  page  53. 
Agreeably  to  the  correction  in  said  page,  the  note  ofDr, 
Clarke  is  "in"  and  not  "to"  our  understandings:  but 
there  is  no  difference  in  sense;  because  the  Holy  Spirit 
would  in  vain  witness  in,  if  not  to.  Be  it,  that  the  under- 
standing is  made  the  medium  to  the  feelings.  The  lat- 
ter are  sometimes  addressed  by  another  course,  and  es- 
pecially on  the  present  subject. 

That  Mr.  Wesley  preferred  "to  our  spirits,"  is  here 
thought  evident,  although  he  considered  the  contending 
for  it  as  not  necessary  to  his  purpose.  This  was  not 
yielding  it.  If  he  put  "with"  into  his  notes,  it  may  have 
been  from  mature  consideratioUj  and  only  shows  a  more 
extensive  variety. 

After  all  as  the  witnessing  of  the  spirit  might 
have  been,  through  the  instrumentality  of  his 
miraculous  effusions,  to  the  spirits  of  the  gentile 
christians;  there  would  be  nothing  conceded  on 
the  present  point,  by  the  admission  of  the  inter- 
pretation. The  holy  agent  addressed  the  minds 
of  the  gentile  christians  through  the-  medium 
of  their  senses.  But  the  argument  of  jhe  ap(^tle  re- 
quires reference  to  the  conviction,  of  the  Jewish 
christians. 

This  is  the  only  objection  to  the  rendering  of  Padp^ 
hurst;  who  however,  after  his  translation  adds — "not 
by  any  direct  impression  or  immediate  testimony 
communicated  to  the  soul,  but,  as  the  Apostle  speaks 
V.  14.  by  leading  us  in  our  lives  and  conversationy 
&c." 


*  25 

It  will  be  pertinent  to  remark  a  partial  representation 
of  the  sentiments  of  the  present  author,  from  lectures  on 
the  catechism  formerly  published  by  him  [page  239]  in 
which  it  is  said-^ — "What  miraculous  effusion  vasto  the 
infant  church,  the  authentick  record  of  it,  and  other  evi- 
dences of  Christianity  are  to  believers  r  f  the  present 
day:"  From  which  the  "Farther  Rcplier"  deduces  the 
inference  [page  51] — "that  to  believers  of  the  present 
day,  there  is  no  other  witness  of^the  Spirit,  than  the 
scriptural  account  of  those  miraculous  effusions."  How 
happened  it  to  escape  his  consideration,  that  these  mira- 
culous effusions  were  in  confirmation  of  the  gospel 
preached  by  apostolick  men?  Answerable  to  the  gospel 
so  preached,  are  the  records  of  it  now  in  our  possession: 
and  answerable  to  the  effusions  are  the  credible  narra- 
tives of  them  and  other  evidences  of  Christianity.    ^ 

Further,  as  in  the  gospel  age,  the  inward  cast  of  cha- 
ricter  of  the  believers,  produced  by  the  ordinary  operation 
of  the  spirit,  concurred  with  the  miraculous  effusion  in 
demonstrating  their  adoptioh,  and  in  being  its  seal  and 
pledge;  the  same  cast  of  character,  produced  by  the 
same  operation,  and  in  concurrence  wiih  holy  scripture, 
reaches  to  the  same  effect. 

In  defence  of  the  opposite  exposition  of 'he  text,  there 
is  produced  the  authority  of  archbishop  Tillotson,  where, 
discoursing  on  John  7.  39,  and  noticing  the  text  in  ques- 
tion, he  says — "that  it  is  a  testimony  within  iis^  that  we 
are  the  children  of  God."  He  speaks,  further,  of  the 
seal,  the  pledge,  and  tlie  earnest  of  the  Spirit: 
But  his  meaning  is  evident  in  another  place  not  far  be- 
fore, where  it  is  sairi — -"The  ^-pirit  of  God,  dwelling  in 
good  men  and  evidencing  itself  by  its  genuine  fruits  and 


2d 

effects,  the  graces  and  virtues  cFa  good  life,  is  said  to  be 
the  pledge  and  earnest  of  our  future  inheritance. '^  The 
archbishop  contends  for  an  immediate  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  But  for  what  object?  Is  it  a  direct  and  per- 
sonal assurance  of  pardon?  No:  But  it  is  tothe  effcctof  *an 
inward  power,  strength  and  assistance  communicated  to 
christians,  to  all  the  purposes  of  holiness  and  obedience.'* 
There  are  two  sermons  on  John  7.  39;  and  they  are  as  in- 
consistent  with  the  opposite  theory,  as  any  thing  in  th' 
Essay.  When  Dr.  Doddridge  is  quoted  to  the  same  effect, 
why  is  it  not  shown,  that  by  internal  and  gracious  ope- 
rations, giving  assurance  Sec.  vvas  meant  an  immediate 
communication  of  pardon? 

The  general  tenour  of  the  writings  of  the 
archbishop,  would  refer  his  interpretation  to  the 
fruits  of  the  spirit.  Certain  terms  had  been  explained 
by  him,  in  the  conclusion  of  the  first  of  the  two  sermons: 
They  are  repeated  early  in  the  second,  without  the  ex- 
planation; and  so  taken  up,  and  bent  to  a  meaning  in  con- 
trariety to  it.  There  is  a  similar  misdirection  given  below 
to  the  same  excellent  person,  in  a  comment  .on  2  Cor.  1. 
22;  which  speaks  again  of  a  seal,  an  earnest  ahd^a  pledge. 
These  are  referred  by  the  archbishop^^io  the  operations 
of  the  Holy  Spirit:  but  they  are  sufficiently  explained 
by  him  in  what  immediately  follows.  After  discoursiMpof 
tlie  operation  of  the  high  agent  in  prayer,  in  peace,  and 
in  consolation,  the  statement  is  made  more  at  large  than 
will  here  suit  for  a  quotation,  that  "although  it  is  hard, 
if  not  impossible,  particularly  to  distinguish  between  the 
motions  of  God's  Spiritand  those  rf  our  own  minds;  yet 
we  are  assured  of  the  existence  of  the  supernatural  princi- 
ple from  its  effects  and  from  the  declarations  of  scripture. " 


S7 

Rom. '5.  5.  When  the  present  author  save  the  inter- 
pretation referred  to  of  this  text,  it  was  such  as  seemed 
called  for  by  the  argument  of  the  apostle.  But  it  was  not 
intended  to  deny,  that  the  love  existing  in  the  divine 
mind  was  manifested  to  the  hearts  of  believers,  by  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  nor  if,  in  contrariety 
to  his  opinion,  the  proper  construction  be  the  love  of 
God  in  the  hearts  of  believers,  that  the  sense  was  exci- 
ted by  any  other  cause.  The  text  ought  not  to  have  been 
produced  on  this  occasion,  without  notice  of  the  effect 
of  the  initiatory  words  of  it. 

Rom.  8.  9.  8.  15.  14,  17.  The  first  and 
second  of  these  texts  refer  to  the  ordinary  opera- 
tions of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  holiness  of  heart;  and 
the  List  of  them  refers  to  the  same  Spirit,  in  the  fruit  of 
holy  joy.  There  is  nothing  of  direct  communication 
in  these  things;  and  they  are  explained  accordingly  by 
Doddridge,  To  the  same  purpose  with  the  latter  of  the 
texts,  is  2  Cor.  13  14,  and  1  Thess.  1.  5  and  6.  1  Cor.  2, 
12.  The  same  commentator  explains  it  of  the  informa- 
tion and  regulation  of  the  mind,  in  opposition  to  carnal 
views.  This,  and  not  the  sentiment  of  the  position,  is 
what  he  meant  by  notionally  and  experimentally. 

2.  Cor.  1.  22.  He  interprets  the  sealing  and  the  ear- 
nest, of  "the  gifts" — ^doubtless  meaning  in  miraculous 
effusioiiSj  as  he  explains  in  other  places — and  ''the 
graces,"  which  produce  an  anticipation  of  heaven  in 
the  heart.  The  same  interpretation  may  be  given,  on  the 
same  authority,  of  Gal.  3.  14.  and  of  Eph.  1.  13. 

Gal.  4.  6.  That  all  good  in  the  heart  is  ascribed  to  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  not  here  disputed.  The 
place  refers  especially  to  the  good  disposition  of  the 


28 

hecirt,  so  produced,  which  consists  in  a  confidence  like 
that  of  a  free  man,  distinguished  from  the  fear  and  dis- 
tance of  a  slave.  This  also  is  the  interpretation  in  the 
paraphrase  so  often  referred  to  above,  and  made  the 
more  manifest  by  the  reference  to  Selden  in  a  note. 

Heb.  6.  4.  Doddridge  explains  the  only  terms  quoted 
thus— The  "heavenly  gift,  is  the  illumination  by  chris- 
tian knowledge:  and  the  being  m  tde  partakers  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  is  the  possession  of  his  miraculous  com- 
munications. The  unquoted  expressions  of  "tasting  of 
the  good  word  of  God  and  the  powers  of  the  w^orld  to 
come,"  refer  to  "affectionate  impressions"  on  the  minds 
of  the  Hebrews — not  consisting  in  a  direct  and  personal 
assurance  of  pardon,  but — "awakening  in  them  a  con- 
viction of  sin,  desires  after  holiness,  and  resolutions  in 
favour  of  it." 

1  Pet.  1.  12.  "The  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  fromhea- 
ven" — "with  such  visible  glory" — savs  Doddridge 
—"and  testifying  his  continued  residence  among  us,  by 
such  wonderful  effects." — 2.  3.  When  the  commenta- 
tor  so  often  here  quoted,  gave  the  pertinent  comment, 
in  the  "Farther  Reply,"  he  did  not  ihifik  of  interpreting 
the  text  to  the  purpose  of  that  work.  .On  the  contrary, 
the  testifying  spoken  of,  was  the  "knowing  the  sweetness 
there  is  in  Christ,  and  how  suitable  he  is  to  the  necd^« 
ties  and  desires  of  an  awakened  sinner;"  all  which 
might  be  from  the  preached  gospel,  under  the  ordinary 
influences  of  the  Spirit. 

1.  John  3.  24.  According  to  the  author  here  so  much 
respected,  the  abiding  of  the  Spirit,  is  his  "producing  in 
6ur  souls  by  his  gracious  operation  the  Image  of  God, 
^nd  forming  us  V)  an  intimacy  with  and  nearness  to  him:  *' 


S9 

Which  is  commonly  known  under  the  name  of  sancti- 
iication. 

1   John  4.  13.  "He  hath  given  us  of  his  Spirit:  "ope- 
'rating  by  his  gracious  influences,"  says  the  same  com- 
mentator. 

1  John  5.  6.  "It  is  the  Spirit  that  beareth  witness." 
The  extraordinary  communication  of  the  Spirit  to  his 
servants,  is  the  most  glorious  communication  of  all," 
says  the  same  excelleiit  person. 

10.  It  is  surprising  that  a  man  possesed  of  the  learning  of 
Dr.  A.  Clarke,  should  have  furnished  the  "Farther  Re- 
ply" wiih  a  note  on  this  text,  grounded  on  the  supposi- 
tion, that  it  speaks  of  the  person  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
"Witness,"  in  this  place,  is  the  same  with  "Testimonv;" 
which  ma\  be  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  in  the  heart. 

P'  ilipp.  1.9.  It  is  evidently  cited,  for  the  sake  of  the 
word  "sense"  in  the  margin  of  the  large  bibles,  consi- 
dered as  the  same  with  judgment:  as  if  sense  or  feeling 
may  not  be  excited  by  other  than  direct  communication. 
The  same  author  refers  to  the  *'feeling"  or  ^'■percep- 
tion''' of  the  social  ties  sooken  of  before:  but  marks  the 
latter  of  those  words  emphatical;  for  which  the  reason 
must  have  been,  his  thinking  it  the  most  agreeable  to  the 
original,  as  it  certainly  is. 

When  the  present  author  made  use  of  a  negative  form 
of  argument,  founded  on  the  silence  of  the  Gospels,  the 
Acts,  and  the  Epistles,  he  did  not  anticipate  a  text  to  be 
alleged  from  the  Apocalypse.  But  as  such  an  authority 
is  adduced  in  the  "  Farther  Reply,"  it  may  not  be  im- 
proper to  notice  it  in  this  place. 

Rev.  2.  17.  It  speaks  of  "  hidden  manna,"  and  "a 
•^Thitc  stone" — to  be  given  "to  him  that  overcometh," 


30 

with  reference  to  dangers  that  will  beset  the  righteous 
through  life;  and  therefore  not  to  be  expected,  until  the 
battle  shall  be  over,  and  the  conquest  gained.  Accord- 
ingly, in  other  messages  to  the  churches  of  Asia,  it  is — 
"He  that  overcometh  and  keepeth  my  words  unto  the 
end,"  and  "to  him  that  overcometh,  will  I  give  to  sit 
down  with  me  in  my  throne,  &c."  Ifthe  interpretation  here 
given  should  be  unwelcome  from  the  present  quarter, 
let  it  be  taken,  although  it  must  be  to  the  same  f  ffect, 
in  the  commentary  so  much  noticed  above.  It  may  be 
seen  at  large  in  the  paraphrase,  the  note,  and  the  im> 
provement.  It  is  not  means  to  deny,  that  the  text  may 
with  great  propriety  be  applied,  in  an  accommodated 
sense,  to  an  anticipation  of  the  heavenly  Canaan.  But  it 
is  not  the  sense,  as  it  stands  in  scripture. 

It  has  been  a  painful  task,  to  show  the  irrelevancy  of 
the  above  texts;  of  the  greater  number  of  which  it  must 
still  be  here  believed,  that  they  were  never  before  present- 
ed in  formal  argument — although  they  may  have  been 
in  declamation,  in  favour  of  the  contradicted  position. 
It  would  be  easy  to  show,  that  in  general,  the  copimen- 
tators  relied  on  in  the  "Farther  Reply,"  ififo  not  conn-  up 
to  the  sense  vvhich  it  was  written  lo  sustain.  But  it  Wiis 
thought  best  to  confine  the  attention  to  a  single  commen- 
tator,  respected  on  both  sides  of  the  present  qucstion.^^ 

The  Farther  Replier  was  under  a  mistake,  if  he  un- 
derstood the  Essay,  as  representing  Dr  Doddridge 
of  his  opinion  in  any  part  of  his  commentary.  The 
meaning  was,  that  his  interpretation  was  not  so  pointedly 
applied  to  the  conviction  of  the  believing  Jews,  as  the 
argument  of  the  apostle  requires.  Of  some  of  the  texts 
ffi  'ihe  first  appendix  to  the  Essay  it  seems,  that  if  they 


31 

had  been  adduced  by  men  of  name,  it  was  unknown  to 
the  Farther  Replier.  They  are  eight  in  number.  Four 
of  them  are  produced  by  himself.  Of  the  remainder, 
.three  may  be  found  applied  to  the  doctrine  of  assurance, 
in  the  notes  attached  to  the  larger  editions  of  the  West- 
minster  confession,  which  have  been  so  long  considered 
by  many  able  men,  as  a  store-house  of  authorities.  Of 
the  only  remaining  text,  2  Tim.  4.  8,  the  Replier  ought 
not  to  suppose  it  improbable  that  it  has  been  produced 
to  the  point,  wlien  he  himself  has  argued  from  confidence 
in  an  uninspired  but  holy  man,  like  that  expressed  by 
St.  Paul,  that  it  is  evidence  in  favour  of  the  position., 

Section  8. — Of  the  fifth  objection. 
It  is  bottomed  on  the  silence  of  St.  Paul  on  the  sub- 
ject, in  his  instructions  to  Timothy  and  to  Titus,  con- 
cerning the  ministry.  On  the  other  side,there  is  produced 
the  text—"  These  things  I  will  thatthouaffirm  constant- 
ly." What  things? — Among  others,  there  is  "  the  wash- 
ing of  regeneration,"  inward  cleansing  and  the  outward 
sign  of  it,  belonging  to  the  commencement  of  the  sincere 
profession  of  Christianity — and  "the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost" — which  ought  to  be  "day  by  day."  The 
irrelevancy  was  shown  in  the  notes;  and  the  text,  as 
given  in  the  Reply,  still  stands  as  the  only  place  alleged 
against  the  objection. 

Section  9. — Of  the  sixth  objection. 
It  turned  on  the  uselessness  of  any  other  test,  accord- 
ing to  the  tenet  in   question.  This  is  misinterpreted  in 
the  Reply.  It  was  not  meant,  that  the  tenet  disowned 
every  other  test;   but  the  meaning  was,  that  any  other 


was  uiinecessaiy,  on  the  ground  so  taken.  The  duty  of 
self-examination  may  exact  much  deep  thought,  and 
much  nice  discrimination:  But  what  occasion  for  them 
—still  meaning,  in  the  single  point  of  ascertaining  re- 
ligious state — if  there  be  the  shorter  road  of  consulting 
a  testimony  in  the  mind?  T!  le  matter  seems  to  have  Leen 
dropped  in  the  ''Farther  Reply,"  and  may  be  so  here. 

Section   iO. —  Of  the  seventh  objection,  , 

In  the  Essay  it  was  said,  that  the  author  of  it  had 
never  met  with  a  scrap  from  any  of  the  fathers,  even 
advanced  in  favour  of  the  position.  He  cannot  say  so, 
any  longer:  but  with  what  propriety  they  are  nov/  pro- 
duced in  the  "Farther  Reply,"  is  the  question. 

It  begins  its  discussion  of  the  present  subject,  with 
retorting  on  the  Essayist,  and  asking,  wh^erc  is  his  test 
to  be  found  in  them  of  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  at 
first  in  miraculous  effusion,  and  since  in  the  scriptures? 
Answer:  no  where  in  the  form  of  a  disputed  point,  but 
wherever  they  refer  to  those  oracles,  in  concurrence 
with  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  in  the  heart:  6f  which  there 
is  abundance  of  evidence,  not  like^  to  be'^3enicd,  in 
their  homilies  and  other  writings.      . 

To  give  a  damper  on  the  wliolt  argument,  au- 
thorities are  produced,  intended  to  invalidate  any^pti- 
mony  from  the  fathers. 

The  first,  is  that  of  Dr.  FJaweis;  iii  what  he  himself 
calls  "an  impartial  history  of  the  christian  church." 
There  could  hardly  have  been  produced  a  more  incom- 
petent witness:  and  if  any  reader  wishes  to  know  how 
cheap  his  name  is  held  by  those  who  consent  with  him  in 
liis  theology,  many  proofs  might  be  referred  to;  but. at 


33 

present,  there  shall  be  notice  of  those  only  to  be  found 
in  the  first  volume  of  the  Christian  Observer.  The  in- 
dex of  names  will  direct  to  the  places  The  misrepresen- 
tations of  this  divine,  in  respect  to  the  Fathers  in  particu^ 
lar,  have  been  pointed  out  by  many  persons:  The  truth 
is,  he  measured  their  respective  worth  by  the  standard 
of  his  Calvinism.* 

*  On  the  authorjfy  of  this  divine,  there  are  given  in  the  "Farther 
Reply"  two  anecdotes  of  two  very  respectable  prelates,  in  them- 
selves to  their  credit,  but  designed  to  manifest  sentiments  on  their 
death-beds,  inconsistent  with  those  of  their  preceding  lives.  The 
truth  of  the  anecdotes  requires  better  evidence,  than  their  appear- 
ing from  the  pen  cf  Dr.  Haweis.  He  may  have  believed  them; 
but  many  know  how  much  the  English  prints  abound  with  fabri- 
cations of  'his  sort,  concerning  distinguished  persons. 

The  above  are  about  as  mwc  -  to  the  matter  in  hand,  as  when  the 
Farther  Rcplier  goes  out  of  his  way,  to  vent  his  prejudices  in  tel- 
ling of  "sinecures,"  and  of  the  popular — not  the  ecclesiastical — 
Phraseology  ol  "livings." 

Did  it  never  occur  to  the  retailer  of  these  and  many  such  things 
opprobrious  to  the  church  of  England,  to  how  much  greater 
an  extent  he  has  carried  his  unprovoked  attack,  (han  could  have 
been  chargeable  on  the  present  author,  even  had  he  brought  before 
the  publick  a  particular  body  of  professing  christians,  indepen- 
dently on  their  theology?  which  has  not  been  done  by  him. 

The  author  takes  the  opportunity  of  declaring,  that  he  has  no 
design  to  deny,  in  regard  to  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  Eng- 
lish clergy,  there  being  room  for  the  remarks  quoted  in  the  32d 
and  following  pages  of  the  Farther  R^iply,  of  the  neglect  of 
grounding  christian  morals  on  christian  doctrine.  May  such  re- 
marks as  those  of  bishops  Lavington  and  Horsely,  have  their  due 
eff-^ct:  For  without  the  latter  of  these  subjects,  the  gospel  i'  not 
preached;  and  even  the  former,  severed  from  it,  is  little  more  than  a 
name. 


34 

The  much  more  respectable  Dr.  Mosheim  is  brought 
to  testifv  against  the  Fathers,  in  two  long  quotations;  in 
which,  the  only  matter  to  the  purpose  is,  that  "they  did 
not  succeed  so  well" — meaning  as  in  their  writings 
against  the  pagans — "in  unfolding  the  true  nature  and 
genius  of  Christianity."  There  is  a  difference  between 
success  in  unfolding  the  doctrines  of  the  system,  and 
testifying  to  what  they  are:  in  which,  the  testimony  of 
the  Fathers  would  not  have  been  lightly  spoken  of  by 
Dr.  Mosheim.  It  should  be  remembered,  that  he  is 
speaking  of  controversial  writers;  and  that  therefore, 

It  is  a  pity  to  charge  the  f  >ult,  as  is  done  in  a  cited  authority,  on 
archbishop  Laud;  who  has  enough  in  his  character,  not  to  be  de- 
fended. It  has  been  more  reasonably  accounted  for,  as  introduced 
in  the  reign  of  Charles  the  second,  by  an  affected  contrarif  ty  of 
those  who  had  for  sonoe  time  filled  the  pulpits;  many  of  whom  ran 
into  the  opposite  extreme,  of  preaching  doctrine  without  morals* 
There  is  no  inconsistency  with  this  acknowledgment,  in  what  is 
said  in  the  notes  [page  56]  and  remarked  on  in  the  Farther  Reply, 
[^page  32]  that  the  doctrine  said  to  be  preached  by  Mr,  Wesley, 
was  customary.  It  can  be  shown,  in  printed  sermons  of  many  dis- 
tinguished men  in  the  intervening  times.  If  the  m3ss  of  clergy  are 
to  be  judged  of  from  them,  the  number  of  correct  poachers  must 
have  been  great.  As  to  the  extent  of  cuslmnarily.,  it  is  not  to  be 
estimated  either  by  the  author  or  by  his  opponent,  although  put  in 
italicks  by  the  latter.  Where  is  the  record'bf  such  a  custoni,  a& 
that  of  denial  of  all  the  pulpits,  for  preaching  justification  b^i^th?  - 
What  dsfensible  si-nse  can  be  put  on  Mr.  Wesley's  words— "in- 
ward salvation  now  attainable,"  other  than  release  from  the  dominion 
of  sin  and  sui  jeciion  to  g(  spel  righteousness?  But  under  the  unusual 
phrase,  may  there  not  have  been  included  the  proposition,  which 
alter  having  been  preached  for  thirty  yiears,  was  acknowledged  by 
him  not  to  be  true? 


33 

what  he  says  has  no  bearing  on  writings  addressed  to 
the  heart,  and  intended  to  govern  the  conduct— such  as 
the  epistles  of  Clement  and  Ignatius.  Even  in  regard 
to  controversial  writers;  the  historian,  a  few  pages  be- 
fore, had  made  a  material  distinction  between  disputed 
cjoctrines,  concermng  which  only  they  wrote;  and  the 
undisputed,  which,  he  says,  *'are  very  rarely  defined 
with  accuracy,  by  the  ancient  writers,  so  as  to  point  out  to 
us  clearly,  what  their  opinions  concerning  them  were." 
If  the  views  here  taken  of  the  Fathers,  be  correct;  the 
point  in  question,  must  have  been  one  of  the  undis- 
puted. If  so,  either  it  was  unknown,  whether  in*  the 
shape  of  truth,  or  in  that  of  heresy,  as  affirmed  in  the 
Essay;  or  it  was  universally  held,  and  therefore  passed 
over  by  the  controversial  and  other  writers  in  silence. 
The  argument  is,  that  the  matter  was  too  important  to 
every  individual,  to  admit  the  latter  supposition. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  much  to  prove,  that  the 
Writings  of  the  early  Fathers  may  have  been  sufficient 
expositions  of  the  faith,  in  the  sense  of  laying  all  essen- 
tial points  before  the  empcrours  and  senate,  and  other 
strangers  to  the  system;  and  not  in  the  unfolding  of  the 
several  doctrines  lucidly,  and  with  apposite  reasonings. 
This  is  the  merit  denied  to  them  by  Mosheim. 

Monsieur  Daille,  the  learned  French  protestant  divine, 
who  is  supposed  to  have  written  with  the  greatest  effect 
against  the  improper  use  of  the  Fathers;  and  who  has 
been  thought,  by  men  of  equal  intelligence  with  himself, 
to  have  carried  the  matter  to  an  extreme;  in  the  conclu- 
luon  of  his  celebrated  work,  opens  his  mind  concerning 
them  as  follows.  After  praising  their  exhortations  to 
holiness,  and  the  solid  proofs  found  in  them  of  the  fun- 


m 

tiamental  principles  of  the  christian  religion,  he  goes  dn^ 
in  these  words — "But  now,  besides  what  has  been' 
hitherto  said,  we  may,  in  my  opinion,  make  another  very 
considerable  use  of  the  P'athers.  For  there  sometimes 
arise  such  troublesome  spirits,  as  will  reeds  broach  doc- 
trines devised  out  of  their  own  head,  which  are  not  at  all 
grounded  upon  any  principle  of  the  christian  religion.  I 
say  therefore,  that  the  authority  of  the  Fathers  may 
very  properly  and  seasonably  be  made  use  of,  against  the 
impudence  of  these  men,  by  showing,  that  the  Fathers 
were  utterly  ignorant  of  any  such  fancies,  as  these  men 
propose  to  the  world.  And  if  this  can  be  proved,  we  ought 
certainly  to  conclude,  that  no  such  doctrine  was  ever 
preached  to  mankind,  either  by  our  Saviour  Christ,  or 
by  his  ai)ostles.  For  what  probability  is  there,  that  those 
holy  doctors  of  former  ages,  from  whose  hands  christi;)n- 
ity  has  been  derived  down  unto  us,  should  be  ignorant 
of  any  of  those  things,  which  had  been  revealed  and 
recommended  by  our  Saviour,  as  important  and  neces-- 
sary  to  salvation?" 

The  censures  cast  by  Monsieur  Daille,  when  no  ac- 
tual case  uas  in  his  view,  shall  not  be  here^iplied  to 
the  case  in  hand.  But  there  is  the  wi^,  that  it  may  be 
seriously  compared  with  the  rule  laid  down  by  him;  and 
further,  tliat  there  may  be  a  consideration  of  the  extent, 
in  which  the  making  light  of  it  gives  advantage  torne 
Romanists  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  Avians,  Socinians, 
and  even  Deists  on  the  other. 

The  first  Father  cited  is  St.  Clement,  who  says — "A 
full  effusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  upon  you  all.'' 
Doubtless,  he  meant  not  the  miraculous  effusion  on  all, 
hwt  the  ordinary  operations  of  the  Spirit^  The  question 


^7 

h' — how  were  they  manifested?  Answer:  not  in  direct 
an(i  personal  communication  of  pardon;  but,  as  is  evi= 
dent  in  the  long  paragraph  of  which  the  words  are  part, 
and  in  the  other  long  paragraph  before  it  in  the  epistle, 
"in  the  performance  of  various  social  duties,  in  regard  to 
\yhich  the  addressed  church  had  recently  become  delin- 
quent. Mr.  Milner,  from  whose  history  a  comment  is 
given  on  the  place,  had  reason  to  complain   of  those, 
who  branded  with  the  name  of  enthusiasm  the  doctrine 
of  the  hpirit's  work  on  the  heart,  and  the  experience  of 
his  consolations  in  the  sou!:  but  it  is  here  supposed  very 
improbable,  that  he  would  have  lent  his  name  to  the 
support  of  the  position  at  issue.    He  wrote  his  histo- 
ry, with  the  design  of  being  more  attentive  to  the  traces 
of  piety  i'l  the  several  ages,  than   to  facts  prominently- 
dwelt  on  by  historians  generally.   It  is  remarkable,  that  a 
work  should  be  so  often  quoted  with  approbation  in  the 
Farther  Reply;  and  yet,  that  this  should  not  produce 
from  it  a  single  extract,  in  which  the  mind  of  the  writer 
is  declared  in  favour  of  the  sentiment  of  the  positione 
It  is  so  irrelevant,  to  cite  the  epistles  of  the  venerable 
Ignatius,  where  he  speaks  of  God's  dwelling  in  us  as 
his  temples,  and  the  having  a  feeling  ot  it;  which  may 
well  be  interpreted  of  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and  of  his 
presence  manifested  therein;  that  there  is  thought  to  be 
no  need  of  any  further  remark  on  his  authority, 

Clement  and  Ignatius,  were  of  the  first  century.  Justin, 
of  the  second,  in  his  examination  previous  to  his  mar- 
tyrdom, professed  before  the  judge  a  certainty  of  his 
salvation.  Many  have  done  the  same:  some,  with  very  lit- 
tle cause  apparent  to  the  world;  and  others,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  venerable  martyr,  on  the  ground  of  the  promises 


S8 

of  the  gospel,  and  through  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ; 
compared  with  the  gracious  habits  of  their  souls,  and 
not  without  their  being  manifested  in  act;  although 
mingled  with  infirmity.  It  is  perhaps  owing  to  the  said 
profession  of  Justin,  that  Dr  Haweis  [vol.  1.  page  189] 
"hopes" — shame  on  the  double  faced  compliment — 
"that  the  root  of  the  matter  was  in  him."  It  may  be  ac- 
counted for  by  passages  in  Justin,  confessedly  unfavour- 
able to  Calvinism. 

If,  in  the  quotadon  here  given  from  Mihier,  the  put- 
ling  again  in  italicks,  were  designed  to  convey  the  idea 
of  reiterated  assurance;  it  is  wide  of  any  thing  within 
the  view  of  that  author.  Perhaps  it  may  not  have  been 
intended;  but  as  the  intimation  may  be  understood  by 
the  reader  of  assurance,  there  may  be  propriety  in  men- 
tioning, that  the  "again,"  twice  introduced,  was  with  a 
reference  as  well  to  a  suspension  of  the  persecution,  as 
to  the  revival  of  the  courage  of  the  accused. 

The  passage  from  Cyprian,  is  for  the  proof  of  sudden 
and  entire  conversion.  Who  can  reasonably  doubt,  that 
a  sinner,  under  conviction  of  the  errour  of  bis  ways,  and 
resolution  to  reform,  breaks  off  immediately,  i^t  merely 
from  this  or  that  sin,  but  from  all  hl^  sins?  This  is 
evident  in  C}prian's  specifying  of  th^;,ex changes  of  ex- 
pense for  parsimony,  of  costly  for  common  apparel ,^d 
of  ambition  for  retirement.  They  are  changes  of  habit^ 
begun  at  once,  and  doubtless  from  a  change  of  heart. 
Here  was  U-e  place,  for  this  celebrated  bishop  to  speak 
of  direct  and  personal  assurance.  But  where  is  it? 

There  follow  quotations  from  Origen;  concerning 
adoption,  so  often  spoken  of  in  this  coi^troversy.  Mr* 
Wesley,  is  quoted  as  saying  that  the  places  cannot  re- 


89 

late  to  miraculous  effusion.  Certainly  not:  but  may  they 
not  relate  to  the  ordinary  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit? 

Mr.  Milner  thinks  favourably  of  Novatian,  although 
guilty  of  what  is  acknowledged  in  the  place  to  be  an 
unjustifiable  schism  His  character  is  foreign  to  the  pre- 
sent question;  and  the  quotation  from  him  may  be  con- 
sented in,  without  injury  to  the  argument. 

The  Farther  Replier  has  gone  into  the  fourth  century, 
and  has  produced  many  and  copious  passages  from  an 
eloquent  writer-=— Macarius.  These  are  places,  in  which 
it  any  where,  the  position  is  to  be  expected:  although 
notwithstanding  the  many  clauses  marked  by  italicks, 
it  can  hardly  be  required  to  show,  that  there  is  nothing 
in  them  to  the  effect. 

The  last  citation,  is  from  the  celebrated  Chrysostomc 
Is  it  still  necessary  to  repeat  the  acknowledgment  of  the 
ordinary  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  producing  the 
sense  of  adoption?  As  for  what  this  Father  may  say  of 
"amazing  turoes  &c."  it  is  well  known,  to  what  extent 
he  has  carried  his  rhetorical  figures.  Romanists  deduce 
the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  from  such  places  as 
where  he  speaks  of  the  people  dyed  red  with  the  blood 
of  the  Saviour,  during  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist. 
Had  he  held  the  position  now  in  question,  it  would  have 
been  taught  and  dwelt  on  over  and  over  in  his  numerous 
homilies.  In  which  of  them  can  it  be  found? 

Bernard,  of  the  twelfth  century,  was  a  great  and  good 
man:  but  to  notice  his  sayings,  taken  in  the  Farther  Re- 
ply Iro-.n  Mr.  Wesley,  v/ould  be  a  repetition  of  what  has 
preceded. 


40 

Section  11. — 'Of  the  eighth  objection. 
This  was  addressed,  exclusively  to  professors  of  the 
Episcopal  church;  and  it  was  affirmed,  that  there  was 
nothing  in  her  institutions  to  the  purpose  of  the  position. 
Mr.  Wesley  thought  he- had  discovered  it,  in  a  senience 
of  the  homily  of  salvation.  His  construction  of  the  sen- 
tence  was  denied;  and  stress  was  laid  on  the  circum^ 
stance,  that,  repeating  the  leading  sentiment  in  the  exist- 
ing controversy,  he  dropt  a  material  part  of  the  sentence. 
The  repetition  is  called  by  the  Farther  Reply,  d  sum- 
mary.  What  is  designed  as  such,  should  contain  all  the 
essential  parts  of  the  matter  to  which  it  relates.  In  the 
present  instance,  there  is  wanting  the  essential  clause  of  a 
reference  to  the  holy  scriptures.  To  this  there  shall  be 
here  added,  that  the  part  of  the  homily  resorted  to  by 
nim  (the  third)  was  not  the  part  of  it  in  which  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  faith  is  the  most  pointedly  laid 
down.  This  is  done  in  the  second  part;  in  which  justi- 
fying faith  is  defined  to  be  with  true  repentance,  hope, 
charity  and  the  fear  of  God.  Accordingly  when,  in  the 
third  part,  the  homily  distinguishes  its  subject  from  the 
case  of  devils,  for  whom  Christ  did  not  die,  i^equires 
"confidence  in  Gods  merciful  promises" — meanmg  in 
the  scriptures;  these,  combining  with.the  graces  spoken 
of  in  the  second  part,  must  be  contemplated  as  the 
ground  of  confidence,  not  only  not  requiring  the  dire^ 
communication,  but  rendering  it  needless. 

In  the  Essay,  it  was  represented  to  be  strange,  that  so 
important  a  position,  if  held  to  be  true,  should  creep  only 
into  a  sentence  of  a  homily.  To  supply  this  defect,  it  is 
thought  by  the  Farther  Reply,  to  be  in  the  seventeenth 
article,  in  the  prayer  for  ascentioii  day,  and  in  sundry  of 
the  homilies^ 


4i 

If  it  be  found  in  t'^e  seventeenth  article,  where  may  it 
not  be  found?  The  arti  le  pronounces  it;  subject  fiili  of 
comfort,  to  those  who  '*ieel  in  thems'  Ives  the  working^  of 
the  Spirit  of  Christ,  mortifying  the  works  of  the  fl*^sh 
and  their  earthly  members,  and  drawing  up  their  mind  to 
high  and  heavenly  things."  What  are  the  matters  men- 
tioned, but  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit?  And  in  what  else  is 
his  Spirit  said  to  be  felt? 

The  collect  for  ascension  day,  prays  for  "the  sending 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  comfort  us;  and  that  we  may  have 
a  riijht  judgment  in  all  things,  and  evermore  rejoice  in 
his  holy  comfort."  Is  there  a  sentence  in  the  Essay  or  in 
the  notes,  which  denies  these  benefits  to  be  the  result  of 
the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit? 

It  is  extraordinary,  that  there  should  be  quoted  the 
homily  for  Whitsunday,  Vvithout  notibe  of  the  passage 
on  the  last  page  of  the  second  appendix  to  the  Essav .  in 
answer  to  the   question-^^'How  shall  i    know  thar  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  within    me?"    It  is  equally  so,  that  in 
quoting  the  homily  of  the  resurrection,  it  should  be  over- 
looked, that  the  seal  a)id  the  !)lcdge  are  predicated  of 
those  o:ily.  who  '*be    feph  nished  with   all    righteous- 
ness "  In  this  fruit  of  the  Spirit,  consist  the  seal  and  the 
pledge.  The  homily  on  reading  the  scripture  says — "In 
reading  of  God's  word,  he  profiteth  nios',  that  is  most 
inspired  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  It  may  be,  in  his  ordi- 
nary influences.  There  f  )llows  a  sentence,  concerning 
the  non-necessity  of  human  and  worldly  v\isdom,  for 
the  understanding  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.    It  oUghf  to 
have  been  stated,  that  this  is  said  of  those,  who  pleaded 
their  ignorance  to  dispense  with  reading.  But  by  <  efer- 
cnce  to  note  I.  it  seems  to  have  been  understood,  as  if 


to  the  purpose  of  dispensing  with  human  literature  iri 
the  clergy.  Nothing  can  be  further  from  the  argu>nent 
of  the  homily. 

The  homily  for  Rogation  week,  says — '^Uwtfeel 
our  conscience  at  peace  with  God,  through  remissmi  of 
sins,"  Sec.  This  is  so  far  from  being  designed  of  the  spe- 
cies of  assurance  contended  for,  that  the  party  is  suppo- 
sed to  have  been  within  the  christian  covenant,  and  to 
have  fallen  from  it.  In  the  event  of  restoration,  the  words 
above  apply.  Doubtless,  the  remission  of  sins,  through 
the  instrumentahty  of  the  promises  of  the  gospel,  and 
tinder  the  operation  of  the  loly  Spirit,  is  a  subject  of 
feeling.  The  homily  on  faith,  speaks  of  it  as  produ  ing 
feeling:  but  whoever  shall  consult  the  place  will  find) 
that  it  is  in  continuing  in  thanksgiving  and  praise  to 
God. 

The  homily  on  certain  places  of  scripture,  says — * 
"'Godly  men  feel  inwardly  God's  Holy  Spirit,  inflaming 
their  hearts  with  love."  Yes:  for  love,  the  fruit  of  the 
Spirit,  is  evidence  of  his  presence. 

Surely,  the  Farther  Replier  had  better  have  continued 
with  Mr.  Wesley,  to  rest  the  matttjr  on  the  single  sen- 
tence of  the  homily  of  salvation.  And  yet,  the  former 
supposes  that  some  good  would  result,  from  printing 
passages  such  as  his,  without  note  or  commSit  It 
would  be  the  way  to  mislead.  The  publishing  of  the  ho- 
milies at  large,  as  is  done  within  these  few  years,  is  more 
fair.  How  came  it  into  his  mind,  to  compare  his  propo- 
sal with  the  publishing  of  the  whole  bible,  by  the  socie- 
ties instituted  for  that  end.  The  latter  is  calculated  to 
prevent  and  correct  mistakes:  his  project^would  create 
thcm« 


Section  12. — Of  the  ninth  objection. 
h  was  founded  on  the  evidence  apparent  in  religious 
books,  that  the  assurances  spoken  of  in  them,  and  de- 
scribed with  its  alternate  changes,  agrees  with  what  we 
know  of  the  same  sort  in  the  rise  and  the  fall  of  the  ani- 
mal spirits.  In  the  "Reply,"  this  became  blended  with 
two  points,  not  contemplated  by  the  author.  Having 
explained  himself  in  note  I.  (page  44)  and  finding  nothmg 
further  in  opposition,  he  puts  the  subject  out  of  view: 
not  without  entreating  all  concerned  to  consider,  how 
unsafe  must  be  a  dependence  which  fluctuates  with  the 
humours  of  the  body,  and  even  with  the  changes  of  the 
atmosphere.  Let  it  not  give  offence  to  any  virtuous  per- 
son, when  the  author  adds,  that  in  some,  formerly  im- 
pressed by  religious  sentiments  which  had  lost  their  in- 
fluence, he  has  known  sensibilities  connected  with  the 
subject  to  be  revived,  by  the  use  of  wine  or  of  ardent 
spirits^ 

Section  13. — Of  the  tenth  objection. 
It  was  grounded  on  the  vacillations  and  inconsistent, 
ees  of  opinion,  attendant  on  the  profession  of  the  posi- 
tion. Here  came  into  view  a  difference  suggested  in  the 
beginning,  between  those  who  considered  the  matter  in 
question  as  essential  to  faith,  and  those  who  held  it  to  be 
attainable  but  not  essential.  The  author,  contemplating 
principally  what  he  thought  the  errour  of  the  Method- 
ists, and  wishing  to  give  a  caution  against  that  especial- 
ly, to  those  for  whom  the  Essay  was  designed,  referred 
their  theory  to  an  appendix.  The  Replier  clearly  saw 
the  line  of  discrimination,  when  he  began  the  controversy 
at  this  point:  but  in  the  character  of  the  Farther  Replei\ 
he  has  lost  sight  of  it. 


44* 

In  treating  of  the  doctrine  in  the  lower  form,  whether 
he  were  exact  in  his  conception  of  it,  this  is  not  the 
place  to  inquire.  But  he  is  persuaded,  that  no  intelligent 
advocate  of  the  Westminster  confession  will  take  of-, 
fence,  at  the  views  which  he  has  given  of  the  opinions 
of  i^ome  of  their  most  prominent  divines.  The  two  Re- 
plies are  silent  on  the  names  of  these  men,  with  one  ex- 
i:epiion,*  If  the  author  labours  under  grievous  errour, 
so  did  they.  One  of  them^— Mr.  Baxter— was  especiaU 
!y  wort  y  of  notice  in  those  two  performances,  on  ac- 
count of  the  honour  in  which  his  memory  was  held  by 
Mr.  Wesley.  Of  this,  the  following  sentence  only  shall 
be  given  from  his  journals  [vol.  3.  page  10]— "Surely, 
one  page  of  that  loving,  serious  christian,  weighs  more 
than  volumes  of  this  bitter  sarcastick  jester," — meaning 
ft  dissenting  minister,and  sonie  work  pubUshed  by  him. 

*  The  exception  is  of  Dr.  Doddridge.  He  was  noticed  in  the 
Essay,  as  abandoning  the  necessity  of  the  test;  and  it  was  remark- 
ed, 'hat  on  the  ground  of  the  necessity,  there  could  hardly  be  a 
more  delusive  work,  than  his  "Rise  and  progress  of  Religion  in 
thp  Soul."  In  the  Reply,  this  was  rebutted  by  nothing  more  than 
his  commendation  of  Mr.  Wesley's  Farthes^Appeal/by  writing 
<yn  ih9  title  page  of  i'-i-"How  forcible  are  right  words."  Who 
w>uU'  not  suppose,  that  the  Fart'ter  Appeal'swatained  the  principle 
in  question?  But  it  contains  nothing  to  that  effect.  And  yet^j^e 
Farther  Reply  (page  90  N)rf^marks  on  the  present  authors,  in 
attention  ^0  this  circumstance  in  the  notes.  It  was  because  he 
thought  the  tract,  and  of  course  the  commendation  of  it,  foreign  to 
the  point  for  which  the  name  of  Dr,  Doddridge  was  introduced 
into,  the  Essay  [pag«  16]  The  tract  comm-nded  by  him,  is  oc- 
cuptt  d  by  auim;»iiversions  on  abounding  irreligion  and  licentious- 
ness, on  the  delinquencies  of  prciessors  of  rclit!;iqp,  and  on  a 
(detence  of  the  then  eaily  plan  of  preaching  of  Mr.  Weslej  anal 
ihosp  who  acted  with  hsnt. 


45 

It  may  be  supposed  not  susceptible  of  denial,  that  there  is 
nothing  in  the  hssay  more  directly  contrary  to  the  po« 
sitio'i  in  question,  than  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Baxter 
as  given  ui  a  note  to  pa.s:e  15. 

Under  this  objection  it  was  noticed,  that  with  one  ex- 
ception,  that  of  the  Methodists,  there  was  not  known 
^  vestige  of  the  position  in  the  confession  of  any  church: 
the  conft'ssion  of  Augsburgh,  and  that  of  the  church 
of  the  Netherlands  and  other  calvinistick  qhurches,  were 
referrfdo.  There  was  no  notice  of  this,  in  the  first 
pamphlet  on  the  other  side:  but  in  the  second,  there  is 
produced  the  single  exception,  of  a  confession  edited 
in  1784,  by  the  respectable  body  called  *'Unitas  Fra^ 
trum."  Concerning  this,  the  author  is  not  prepared  to 
speak  definitely.  But  he  will  remark,  that  some  ex- 
pressions in  it — which  may  perhaps  be  explained  dif. 
ferently — are  contrary  to  what  Mr.  Wesley  was  taught 
bv  the  founder  of  that  society  •«- count  Zinzendorf,  as 
given  in  the  Essay,  page  27. 

This  modern  confession  is  professed  to  be  founded 
«n  that  of  Augsburgh,  which  contains  nothing  of  the 
contradicted  position.  If  it  do,  why  is  not  the  evidence 
prcvduced  fiom  the  source,  and  not  thus  at  second  hand? 
It  is  impossible.*  Equally  so,  is  the  presenting  of  it 
from  the  confession  consented  in  by  all  the  Calvinistick 
churches  on  the  continent    of  Europe,  and   by  tlie 

*  The  senliments  of  the  confession  are  considerably  dilated  in 
the  apology  tor  it,  by  Melancthon  who  had  dr  wn  up  the  apology 
itself.  In  the  apology  justifit  ation  by  faith  is  dwt  It  on  at  great- 
er length,  under  the  second  nead:  But  it  is  also  barren  of  mailer, 

the  purpose  ot  the  Replies. 


46 

churches  descended  from  them  in  this  country.  Let 
these  facts  be  compared  with  the  importance  of  the  po- 
sition, if  correct. 

Section  14 — Of  the  other  supposed  communications ^ 
compared  with  that  in  question. 

When  two  subjects  are  compared  in  argument,  if 
they  agree  in  the  point  on  the  account  of  which  the  argu- 
ment is  constructed,  it  ought  not  to  be  offensive,  because 
of  disagreement  in  other  points.  In  the  comparisons  in 
question,  the  single  point  is  the  full  persuasion  of  the 
parties,  of  communications  to  their  respective  minds. 
The  matter  is  noticed  in  the  "Farther  Reply"  page  35. 

Mosheim,  there  cited,  is  concise  on  the  cases  of  the 
Anabaptists  of  Munster,  From  larger  accounts  of  theni 
it  might  be  made  to  appear,  that  in  the  beginning,  their 
leaders  were  remarkable  for  sanctity  and  correct  lives, 
aud  so  esteemed  by  Luther.  It  was  not  until  they  were 
drawn  to  place  full  reliance  on  revelations  in  their  minds, 
that  they  were  carried  to  the  length  of  building  a  go- 
vernment on  the  basis  of  their  extra vagai^pes.  That 
these  should  be  characterized  by  the  Kames  of  phrenzy 
and  madness,  is  consistent  with  usual,  phraseolo2;y;  but 
could  not  have  been  designed  by  Mosheim  to  describe 
the  men  as  mad,  strictly  speaking:  for  their  measures 
phow  the  contrary. 

As  for  the  Fifth- monarchy  men,  they  were  certainly, 
as  Mosheim  says,  wrong-headed  and  turbulent  enthu- 
siasts; but  sincere  in  their  profession;  which  is  evident, 
in  their  exposing  of  themselves  to  what^all  besides 
must  have  seen  to  be  sure  destruction.  They  certainly 
believed,  that  they  were  acting  under  a  commission  to 


47 
be|2:irt  the  reign  of  Christ  on  earth*  It  must  be  of  a  safe 
state  an  indecisive  test,  which  cannot  give  the  same 
certainty  to  a  wrong  headed  as  to  a  reasonable  man. 

Ravaillac  is  represented  as  a  madman.  He  does  not 
appear  in  that  character  in  the  records  of  his  trial,  which 
may  be  seen  in  Sullv's  memoirs.  It  is  also  said,  that  he 
had  been  expelled  the  religious  order,  of  which  he  was 
a  lay  brother:  but  it  should  have  been  added,  that  his 
expulsion  was  for  no  other  cause  than  his  visions:  which, 
as  appeared  after  the  fact  and  not  before,  had  all  a  relation 
to  the  murder  to  which  he  thought  himself  admonished. 

In  regard  to  the  more  respectable  comparision  intro- 
duced, the  "Farther  Reply"  denies  the  cases  to  be  paral- 
lel: because  of  the  light  withinj  held  on  one  side,  and 
the  rule  of  scripture  on  the  other.  This  does  not  touch 
the  pointy  in  which  the  cases  agree.  Let  there  be  select- 
ed a  given  number  froth  each  of  two  descriptions  of 
persons:  Let  those  selected  be  of  the  same  respectability, 
for  virtue  and  intelligence:  and  let  them  be  equally  free 
from  madness;  unless^  in  either  case,  the  thing  in  ques- 
tion should  be  so  accounted;  which  would  be  to  pre- 
sume, and  not  to  argue.  One  set  declare,  each  of  them 
for  him  and  herself,  that  they  have  received  individual- 
ly a  direct  assurance  of  the  pardon  of  sin^  which  they 
do  not  allege  to  be  personally  addressed  to  each  in  the 
written  word.  The  other  set  as  explicitly  testify,  that 
each  of  them  has  received  an  injunction  distinctly  pre^ 
sented  to  the  mind,  to  make  a  journey  or  a  voyage  for 
the  propogating  of  what  is  conceived  to  be  errour  on 
the  other  side;  yet  contended  by  the  professing  party, 
to  be  not  contrary  to  any  thing  which  the  wrhten  revela- 
tion contains:  the  truth  of  which  they  do  not  deny,  but 


48 

represent  to  he  in  agreement  M^ith  the  inward  H?ht.  Is 
there  not,  so  far  as  the  conscience  of  each  individual  is 
concerned,  as  much  ground  to  act  on  in  regard  to  tte 
one  subject  of  revelation^  as  in  regard  to  the  other? 

The  author,  not  many  years  ago,  was  informed  by  a 
man  of  unquestionable  sincerity  in  religion,  in  relation 
to  a  complaint  by  which  he  had  been  long  afflicted,  that 
It  had  been  removed  by  a  remedy  suggested  to  his  mind, 
in  a  divine  impression.  On  being  questioned,  whether 
he  really  believed  this  to  be  the  source  of  his  recovery, 
he  answered  in  the  affirmative,  with  great  confidence.*" 

Such  a  revelation,  limited  to  the  assurance  of  the  par- 
don of  sin,  is  what  was  meant  in  the  lectures  on  the  ca- 
techism [page  40]  referred  to  in  the  Farther  Reply 
[page  161  under  the  expression-especial  faith.  The 
place  has  been  quoted  imperfectly.  The  words  are— 
*'This  must  mean,  either  the  discerning  of  a  special  in- 
terest in  redemption,  not  indulged  to  ail— and  then  it  is 
an  unwarrantable  limiting  of  the  mercies  of  God;  or  a 
sensibility  to  the  interest  which  wt  possess  in  common 
with  others;  and  then  it  is  true  but  useless:  for  a  gene- 
ral proposition  includes  all  the  particulars  of -which  it  i^ 
affirmed.''^  The  Farther  Keplier  omits  the  words  in  ita- 
licks:  which  gives  an  opportunity,  at  the  end  of  the  pa- 
ragraph, to  ask  the  question — "Is  there  then  "W 
all  this  no  evidence  of  favouring  a  want  of 
feeling  of  the  pardon  of  sin?  The  m^odern  er- 
rour,    of   the    sensibilities    of     which    the     primitive 

*  Oliver  CromweH  is  recorded  as  one  of  tliose,  who  have  con- 
strued an  cxiraordiiwry  impression  as  an  admonitioi^.  to  duty» 
On  some  occasion,  one  of  his  chaplains  [Mr.  Howe]  'Jeli- 
livered  his  mind  in  opposition  to  the  principle;  and  was  ever  aftcj 
coldly  treated  by  the  Protector,  on  that  account* 


49 

thurch  was  said  to  know  nothinp^,  is  not,  as  the  reade* 
is  led  by  the  mutilation  to  suppose,  what  gives  sensi- 
bility to  the  interest  which  we  possess  in  the  gospel  pro- 
mises; but  the  representing  of  the  sensibility  of  the  in- 
terest, as  confirmation  of  the  reality  of  it. 

^Section  14. — Of  the  dislocated  passage  in  the  Essay-^ 
page  18.* 
This  part  of  the  Essay  professed  to  give  some  gene- 
ral facts,  relative  to  the  effects  of  the  position,  and  the 
result  of  the  observation  of  the  author.  Complaint  was 
made  in  the  notes,  that  the  Replier  referred  his  notice  of 
this  place,  to  be  brought  in  with  his  remarks  on  the  se- 
cond appendix:  thus  giving  to  the  former  the  appear- 
ance of  being  designed  against  the  manners  of  the  body 
of  which  he  is  a  member.  It  was  denied  to  have  been 
intended.  The  Farther  Replier  [page  28]  professes  to 
accept  the  denial.  But  what  he  gives  with  one  hand,  he 
takes  back,  as  it  were,  with  the  other  [page  24]  in  the  im« 
plied  charge  of  design  in  the  separating  of  the  two  sub- 
jects, and  the  distant  station  of  one  of  them  from  the 
other.  This  is  suspicion  in  answer  to  a  change  of  fact. 
There  is  no  circumstance  sustaining  the  suspicion;  be- 
cause of  two  subjects,  one  of  which  was  to  be  especially 
treated  of,  it  was  natural  to  speak  of  the  point  in  which 
they  were  supposed  to  agree;  and  to  refer  the  other 

*  It  is  imagined  in  the  Farther  Reply  [page  2f]  that  the  resul- 
ting mistake  was  guarded  against  by  notice  of  the  page  in  the 
Christian  Register:  as  if  it  could  have  been  expected,  that  readers 
generally  would  inquire  for  that  periodical  work,  merely  to  ascer- 
tain the  order  in  which  it  is  answered  in  thf  Repiy;  or,  even  in 
perusal  of  the  former,  would  detect  the  management  in  the  ktter, 
G 


50 

point,  to  be  exclusively  treated  of   in  another  place! 
which  harmonized  with  the  object  of  the  Essay. 

The  only  colour  which  can  be  given  to  the  effect  pro- 
duced by  the  dislocation  complained  of,  must  be  in  the 
presumption,  that  the  author  knew  little  or  nothing  of 
the  fruits  of  the  controverted  position,  except  as  they 
may  appear  among  the  people  now  contemplated.  He 
saw  much  of  it,  before  there  was  a  single  congregation 
of  them — at  least  as  he  supposes — within  what  are  now 
the  United  States.  In  the  year  1767,  there  was  raised  in 
this  city  a  ferment,  of  which  he  witnessed  the  beginning, 
the  progress,  and  the  speedy  end,  on  the  particular  point. 
There  are  persons  living,  who  cannot  have  forgotten  it. 
In  one  congregation,  not  episcopal,  it  having  been  no- 
tified that  there  was  to  be  a  sermon  preached  in  opposi- 
tion; the  author  attended,  and  listened  to  a  discourse  of  an 
hour  and  a  half,  from  a  clergyman  well  known  and  es- 
teemed among  them.  It  was  from  what  happened  at 
the  said  period,  that  there  was  acquired  the  earliest  in- 
formation of  the  mischiefs  originating  in  the  matter  in 
question;  and  promoted  by  groundless  confidence 
in  some,  and  by  distress  in  others;  either-^rom  a  mis- 
taken cause,  or,  where  real  cause  may  have  existed,  from 
its  taking  of  a  wrong  direction.  CaHit  be  supposed,  con- 
sidering the  profession  of  the  author,  his  preseiTj^img 
of  life,  and  his  intercourses  with  divers  descrip- 
tions of  people,  that  with  a  view  to  the  present  subject, 
he  has  occasion  to  inspect  the  peculiar  manners  of  the 
religious  society  whom  he  has  been  accused  of  tradu- 
cing? He  certainly  has  not. 

The  author,  after  the  facts  given  on  observation,  ap- 
plied them  to  certain  uses;  of  which  there  nee^s  to  be  sai4 


51 

nt)  more,  than  what  relates  to  a  passa.sje  pjiVen  from  ScoU- 
gal.  Being  misunderstood,  it  was  explained  b\  a'iipli- 
fication  in  a  note  P.Tpage  52]  not  without  intimation,  diat 
it  was  conceived  to  be  perfectly  intelligible  in  the  Essay. 
In  the  Farther  Reply  [page  9]  the  contrary  is  conten  .ed 
to  be  the  case;  as  is  said  to  be  confirmed  by  the  sense 
of  sundry  judicious  perjons  to  whom  the  pas^.age  was 
shown— among  them,  a  friend  of  the  autiv  r.  What  is 
here  said  ought  to  have  weight  with  him,  were  he  suie, 
that  with  the  passage,  there  was  shown  the  sentence  im- 
mediately preceding;  which  includes  within  the  con- 
templation of  the  paragraph  those  only  who  **adorn  the 
doctrine  of  their  God  and  Saviour  "  The  harmlessness 
to  the  party,  was  rested  on  this  circumstancci 

Why  should  it  be  thought  impossible  [ibid]  that  a 
person  of  the  above  description  may  hold  an  errour 
harmlessly  to  himself;  and  yet  that  it  may  do  harm  to 
others^  by  its  legitimate  consequences  not  i)ercei\  ed  by 
him?  It  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  religion. 

Section  15. — 0/ the  Methodists,  as  brouo^ht  info  notic6 
by  the  dislocation  of  the  passage  in  the  Essay. 
The  Farther  Replier  [page  22]  denies  his  having  an^ 
hounced  himself  as  of  the  body  of  the  methodists;  and 
even  under  his  character  as  an  advocate,  they  novi'  come 
in,  only  among  the  mass  of  those  called  the  accusedo 
Let  it  be  inquired,  how  this  matter  stands  in  the  Hep  y. 
At  page  28,  there  begins  a  professed  vindication  of 
them,  against  what  are  represented  as  the  unjust  and  un- 
charitable  attack  in  the  Essay.    The  vindication  is  con- 
tinued to  page  ^2>\  and  then,  notice  is  given  of  the  dis* 
continuance  of  it,  with  the  promise— •♦•The  vindication 


of  the  Methodists  as  a  body,  shall  presently  be  fesii* 
med'*  At  the  end  of  page  40,  the  intervening  subject 
is  dropped;  that  of  the  Methodists  is  resumed;  and  the 
accused  plead  in  the  person  of  the  Replier — "not  guil- 
ty." Was  it  to  be  supposed,  that  any  man,  without  con- 
tradiction, would  have  taken  such  a  liberty  with  a  body 
of  professing  christians,  to  whom  he  was  an  alien?  And 
would  it  not  have  been  indecorous  towards  the  pubUck, 
who  might  be  listening  to  an  enemy,  under  the  mask  not 
of  a  mere  advocate,  but  of  a  representative?  This  was  not 
the  factf  but  the  contrary  could  not  have  been  reason- 
ably supposed,  except  on  the  presumption  of  an  impli- 
ed— it  must  be  confessed  there  was  not  an  explicit—^ 
assumption  of  authority? 

It  is  somewhat  mysterious,  that  the  Farther  Replierj 
after  dislocating  a  passage,  and  giving  it  the  appearance 
of  being  predicated  of  the  Methodists  and  of  them  only; 
should  contemplate  it  as  if  standing  in  its  proper  place; 
and  after  remarking  on  it  accordingly,  should  describe 
the  larger  body  of  those  whom  he  calls  the  accused,  as 
pleading  "not  guilty"  in  his  person*  He  did  not  com- 
mit himself  to  this  extent,  in  his  first  ^publication;  audit 
is  now  a  greater  liberty,  than  vvoyld  have  been  the 
doing  of  the  same  without  express  or  Implied  authority, 
in  behalf  of  the  body  of  which  he  is  a  member.  ^ 

But  it  is  intimated  [pagv  26]  that  on  the  supposition 
of  the  author's  not  levelling  of  his  charge  especially 
against  the  said  body,  the  pernicious  effects  of  the  prin- 
ciple, according  to  the  account  given  of  it,  must  be  ex- 
pected to  manifest  itself  in  their  characters.  This  docs 
not  follow.  He  expressed  his  belief,  that  sonte  subjects 
of  the  errour  settle  down  in  christian  conduct,  and  in 


63 

silence  on  the  point.  Others  were  said  to  have  abandon- 
ed, with  the  principle,  religion  in  evcy  shape;  and  what- 
ever number  there  may  have  been  of  these,  they  may 
be  supposed  tohavcleftthe  society,  or  to  have  been  dis- 
owned by  it.  Even  the  clause  at  the  end  of  the  statement, 
may  be  seen,  to  have  put  some  out  of  the  reach  of  the  sup- 
posed charge.  Of  the  two  intervening  particulars  the 
author  will  only  say  concerning  the  first,  that  he  has  no 
data  on  which  to  calculate  its  extent— for  he  supposes 
some  portion  of  it  to  exist  in  every  religious  society; 
and  in  regard  to  the  other,  that  instances  of  it  have  been 
within  his  personal  knowledge*  Let  it  be  again  remem- 
bered, that  the  arguing  from  a  doctrine  to  its  apparent 
consequences,  ought  not  to  be  too  curiously  carried  in- 
to consideration  of  persons;  as  there  may  be  the  resist- 
ance of  counteracting  causes.  Mr.  Wesley  and  his  as- 
sociate ministers,  were  very  free  in  pointing  out  what 
they  thought  fairly  drawn  consequences  from  doctrines 
held  by  many,  whom  they  would  have  acknowledged 
to  have  been  good  men;  and  on  whose  personal  charac- 
ters, they  were  far  from  considering  themselves  as  cast- 
ing reproach. 

When  the  author  said,  that  he  had  no  reference  to 
any  individuals  of  the  methodistick  persuasion;  the 
meaning  was,  as  the  context  may  show,  that  contem- 
plating the  matter  as  existing  in  different  religious  socie- 
ties, he  put  particular  persons  out  of  view.  Were  he  cal- 
led, by  any  existing  circumstances,  to  the  work  of  iden- 
tifying worthy  members  whom  he  has  known  of  the  said 
persuasion,  it  is  what  he  would  comply  with  much  more 
willingly. 


54 

Section  16.-0/  Wr:  Wesley. 

It  would  be  a  subject  of  regret  to  the  author,  if  he 
ahould  be  found  to  have  treated  the  memory  of  this  di- 
vine, with  any  thing  so  much  like 'personal  indecorum, 
as  the  short  notice  of  his  brother  bordering  on  the  scorn^ 
ful — in  the  Farther  Reply,  page  86.  There  is  only 
claimed  the  privilege,  carried  to  a  great  extent  by  Mr. 
Wesley  with  others,  of  calUng  in  question  a  point  in  his 
theology.  Even  against  the  authority  of  the  elder 
brother,  there  was  an  unintended  offence  of  the  Replier, 
in  the  positive  disallowance  of  the  expression — -"an  in* 
ward  voice."  The  errour  is  now  revoked,  under  the  plea 
that  the  expression  was  rejected  "not  as  to  every  use  of 
it,  but  as  to  its  being  the  point  in  question."  But  it  was  to 
the  point  of  direct  communication,  that  the  expression 
was  introduced  in  the  Essay  (page  11)  and  that  it  was  of 
course  contemplated  in  the  Reply  (page  18  ) 

If  the  author  had  accused  Mr.  Wesley  of  Antinomi- 
anism — for  this  is  the  construction  (page  31)  of  which 
the  representation  in  the  notes  is  thought  suscepti- 
ble— the  charge  would  have  been  unjust:  but  it  was  not 
made.  If  it  should  appear  from  the^Essay^nd  the 
notes,  that  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Wesley,  unintentionally 
on  his  p;>.rt,  produced  Antinomianism  "in  others,  evea 
this  was  not  presented  as  a  charge;  but  arose  incidentallj^p" 
from  the  acknowledgments  of  himself  and  Mr.  Fletcher^ 
brought  to  show  tl.e  change  of  opinion  in  the  former. 
The  matter  stands  thus:  Mn  Wesley,  in  1770,  re- 
minds his  conference— "We  said  in  1744,  we  have 
leaned  too  much  to  Caivinism:"  and  proceeds  to  spe- 
cify  wherein.  How  far  Calvinism  is  truly  reptesented 
or  to  be  charged  with  the  consequences,  is  not  the  qucs- 


55 

lion.  The  particulars  are  in  regard  to  man's  Faitlifulness-^ 
\vorkin.2:  for  life,  and — doin^,  in  order  to  justification. 
In  1744,  there  bad  been  a  drawing  off  from  the  ground 
on  these  points;  and  now,  in  1770,  a  more  distant  posi- 
tion is  to  be  taken.   The  measure  is  vindicated  by  Mr. 
F'etcher,  relatively  to  each  of  them.  How  is  this  done? 
He   tells  sir   Richard  Hill,   his  opponent    [page    24] 
*'You  know  by  sad  experience,  that  at  this  time,  we  arc 
in  danger  of  splitting  on  the  Antinomian   Rock."  And 
he  goes  on,  through  four  pages,  speaking  in  the  person 
of  Mr.   Wesley,  to  describe  the  miserable  shipwrecks 
which  the  same   rock  had   occasioned  in  some  of  the 
societies:  and   he  states  the  errour  to  have  spread  like 
wild  fire.  At  the  end  of  the  speech  put  into  the  mouth 
of  Mr.  V^'esley,  Mr  Fletcher  reverts  to  the  cause  of  all 
the  mischiff — in  Calvinism,  as  he  supposes.  Soon  after 
(prige  36)  he  taKes  up  the  three  particulars  stated  in  the 
minutes,  and  discourses  of  them  at  large;  still  under  the 
aspect  of  there  having  been  formerly  erroneous  views  of 
them,  which    originated   in  Calvinism    and   ended  in 
Antinomianism.       The     Farther     Reply    (page     30) 
represents     what    was    said     in    the    notes    to     this 
effect,  as  injurious  to  the   characters  of  the  said  two 
divines.  It  will  not  be  expected  of  the  author,  to  tran- 
scribe 40  or  50  piiges  into  this  pamphlet.    But  he  ap- 
peals confidently  to  the  judgment  of  every  impartial  per- 
son, who  may  t  ike  the  trouble  of  comparing  those  pages 
with  what  is  here  written.    It  is  a  very  irrelevant  com- 
parison jnade  of  the  subject  (page  31)  with  the  abuse  o 
the  doctrine  of  St.  Paul,  and  the  check  given  by  St. 
James.  Had  the  former  renounced  his  doctrine,  from 
perceiving  that  it  had  led  by  direct  consequence  to  the 
errour,  the  parallel  would  have  been  to  the  purpose.  In 


36 

that  case,  the  seed  sown  was  good,  and  an  enemy  sowed 
tares,  as  is  set  forth  in  a  metaphor  on  the  other  side.  But 
in  the  case  in  hand,  the  tares,  not  intentionally  but 
through  human  infirmity,  were  sovyn  with  the  wheat;  and 
so  acknowledged  to  have  been  by  the  sower.* 

It  is  no  wonder,  that  Mr.  Wesley  should  have  found 
a  difficulty,  which  was  conceived  to  be  apparent,  where 
he  prefaces  his  definition  of  the  testimony  of  the  spirit 
thus — "It  is  hard  to  find  words  in  the  language  of  men, 
to  explain  the  deep  things  of  God."  The  matter  was 
not  to  explain,  but  to  define  a  doctrine;  which  scrip- 
ture, if  it  be  true,  must  be  supposed  to  have  placed 
within  the  comprehension  of  every  believer  and  of 
every  seeker.  When  Mr  Wesley  went  in  search  of 
it  to  the  deep  things  of  God,  he  travelled  beyond  scrips 
tural  bounds. 

Tiie  author's  confession  of  his  oversight,  in  citing 
Mr.  Wesley's  extract  from  the  homily  of  salvation,  is 
thought  imperfect.  It  is  not  alleged,  that  he  is  thereby 
charged  with  any  doctrine  not  held  by  him.  The  author 
thought  himself  the  more  entitled  to  indulgence  in  the 
above  particular,  as  Mr.  Wesley  himself  make^<in  over- 
sight in  that  very  passage;  first  quolnng  the  homily 
correctly,  and  then  repealing  the  uwds  partially,  and 
with  a  variation  of  the  sense.  The  Farther  Replier  calls 
this  the  giving  of  a  summary:  but  who  knows  not,  that  a 
true  summary  contains  all  things  necessary  to  the  mat- 
ter abridged?    Whereas  in  the  present  instance,  there 

*  Amontj  the  questions  and  answers  at  the  conference  of  1747, 
there  is  as  follows--" Have  we  not  leaned  too  much  to  Antinomian- 
iim?  We  arc  afraid  wc  have,"  ».- 


5f 

Was  left  out  the  reference  to  the  scriptures;  the  ground, 
with  the  concurrence  of  present  state  of  mind,  of  arx 
assurance  of  pardon.  How  can  it  be  said  that  the  ac- 
knowledgment is  imperfect,  becatise  it  did  not  specif)  st 
revocation  of  Mr.  Wesley's  omitting  of  the  context? 
If  the  homily  was  quoted  correctly  by  him,  as  the  repub- 
lished Essay  declares  (page  30)  either  the  context  was 
unnecessary,  or  was  given:  which  made  the  notice  of  it 
iof  no  moment.  The  author  denies,  that  he  either  be- 
lieved Mr.  Wesley  to  have  been  "designedly  guilty  of 
the  alleged  omission,"  or  has  said  any  thing  to  that  ef- 
fect. It  seems  (page  36)  that  the  paragraph  bore  the  as- 
pect to  the  mind  of  the  Farther  Replier:  but  this  is  one 
of  his  mar.y  suspicions. 

It  seems,  that  if  the  acknowledgment  had  been  as 
ample  as  the  demand  on  the  other  side  exacted,  the  mis- 
chief had  not  spent  itself,  because  of  intermediate  inju'y* 
There  could  have  been  no  injury,  except  in  point  of 
accuracy,  and  that  in  d  single  instance:  and  the  Far- 
ther Replier  ought  not  to  be  quick  sighted  in  this  par- 
ticular; lest  some  one  should  imagine  and  describe  all 
the  evils  within  the  bounds  of  possibility,  which  may 
result  from  his  introducing  of  the  names  of  many  emi- 
nent persons,  as  holding  an  opinion  contradicted  in  their 
writings:  and  by  some  of  them  in  the  very  places,  from 
which  there  have  been  partial  quotations,  given  to  pro- 
duce a  contrary  impression. 

There  remains  a  concern  of  the  present  author,  respec- 
ting both  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  Farther  Replier.  It  is  to 
show,  in  re,-^ard  to  the  former,  that  there  has  been  pro- 
ved the    only   inconsistency  having  a  bearing  on  the 


3g 

jir^sent  controversy;  and,  that  the  proof  has  been  adrtiitt 
ted  on  the  part  of  the  latter. 

According;  to  his  statement  (page  39)  the  question  of 
change  of  ground  by  Mr.  Wesley  is,  either  his  change 
of  the  definition  of  faith,  or  his  giving  up  of  the  position 
in  question.  In  regard  to  this,  the  Farther  Replier  an- 
swers— and  the  present  author  has  said  nothing  to  the 
contrary — "No,  never."  But  as  to  the  other,  it  is  the 
very  point  on  which  the  present  controversy  began,  al- 
though now  unequivocally  surrendered,  after  having 
been  as  unequivocally  maintained  in  the  Reply,  page  29. 
The  point  is,  that  Mr.  Wesley  ceased  to  be  of  the  first 
of  the  two  descriptions  of  persons  mentioned  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Essay  (page  8)  and  took  the  same,  or 
some  like  ground,  to  that  attributed  to  those  of  the  se- 
cond description. 

A  difference  was  stated,  as  existing  among  the  advo- 
cates of  the  position  in  the  title  page:  "some  contending 
that  the  assurance  spoken  of  is  of  the  essence  of  faith; 
and  others  going  no  further  than  to  say,  that  it  is  highly 
desirable  and  to  be  laboured  after."  Under  the  tenth 
objection  (page  14)  the  methodistsare  said  to  1^  espe- 
cial stress  on  the  controverted  opinion:  Tt  being  design- 
ed, as  what  follows  in  the  second  appeiidix  shows,  and 
as  is  evident  in  the  disjoining  of  them  from  another  dca^ 
scription  of  persons,  to  class  them  of  the  first  of  the  two 
descriptions.  In  the  said  appendix,  they  are  again  intro- 
<}uced;  and  the  design  is  avowed  of  showing  an  incon- 
sistency between  the  opinion  of  Mr,  Wesley  adopted  in 
1737  and  illustrated  in  his  own  person;  and  sentiments 
expressed  by  him  after  a  correspondence  witji  an  un* 
known  person,  under  the  fictitious  name  of  John  Smitli- 


59 

Under  the  head  of  the  precedent  opuiion  of  Mr. 
Wesley,  may  be  mentioned  (Crovvther  page  162)  his 
declaring  of  assurance  to  be  *  "the  essence  or  rather  a 
properly  of  faith:"  the  last  expression  being  short  of  the 
other;  yet  required  to  constitute  the  subject  of  which  it 
is  predicated.  Of  this  testimony  of  the  spirit  it  is  affirm- 
ed (ibid.  166)  that  it  "must  in  the  very  nature  of  things, 
go  before  the  testimony  of  our  own  spirits.'*  Again  (ap- 
peal page  26)  "faith  implies  assurance."  Many  like  say- 
ings might  be  cited;  but  the  last  of  them,  shall  be  what 
was  decided  by  a  conference  shortly  before  the  corres' 
pondence  with  John  Smith,  which  says — "immediately" 
—on  the  act  of  justifying  faith — "the  Spirit  bears  wit- 
ness— thou  art  pardoned."  These  strong  declarations 
are  not  denied  to  have  been  made.t 

*  The  author  quoting  this  expression,  dropped  the  word  "of" 
to  the  injury  of  his  own  argument,  because  to  be  "the  essence" 
of  any  matter,  is  more  than  to  be  "of  its  essence,"  The  Farther 
Replier  seems  to  have  had  an  opposite  conception  of  the  omission 
(page  40  note.) 

Immediately  before  the  words  quoted,  is  the  conviction  that 
Christ  loved  me  and  gave  himself  for  wze— being  put  in  italicks,  tQ 
show  that  the  individual  must  know  it  in  his  special  case;  and  im- 
mediately after  the  sentence  from  which  the  quotation  is  given 
there  is  an  express  application  of  the  whole  to  the  doctrine  of  as- 
surance. And  yet— says  the  Farther  Replier— "He  does  not  men- 
tion the  doctrine  of  assurance  at  all,  as  the  reader  who  will  examine 
the  place,  may  find." 

t  In  the  Farther  Reply  [page  43"]  the  author  is  blamed  for  li- 
mitifig  the  affirmed  assurance,  as  if  predicated  of  an  incipient  state 
of  grace  only.  The  language  is  still  believed  to  be  correct,  but  the 
meaning  has  been  misunderstood.  The  word  only  was  to  distin- 
guish, not  from  the  subsequent  possession  of  the  supposed  benefit, 
but  from  its  being  subsequently  begun.  Under  the  former  cir- 
cumstance, the  contemplated  assurance  must  be  considered  not  as 
given  but  as  continued. 


60 

There  follows  the  change  of  ground.  In  Mr.  Wesley  *s 
letter  lo  his  brother,  soon  after  the  correspondence,  he 
acknowledges,  that  the  proposition  so  long  maintain- 
ed— 'Justification  is  an  assurance  of  pardon  or  necessa- 
rily connected  therewith,  is  not  true."  In  his  letter  to 
James  Morgan,  he  concedes — "Some  may  fear  and 
love  God,  and  not  be  clearly  conscious  of  his  favour." 
In  one  of  his  journals,  he  finds  fault  with  the  "Unitas 
Fratrum,"  for  denying  d.  grees  in  faith.  In  another  of 
his  journals  quoted  by  John  Hampson,  and  not  contra- 
dicted, there  is  a  censure  on  branding  any  person  as  a 
child  of  the  devil,  for  answering  no,  to  the  question- — Do 
you  know  that  your  sins  are  forgiven?  And  Mr.  Flet- 
cher, writing  under  the  eye  of  Mr.  Wesley,  asks  (page 
83)  "Do  we  not  see  hundreds,  who,  when  they  have 
reason  to  hope  well  of  their  state,  think  there  is  no  hope 
for  them?"  The  Farther  Replier  could  not  find  these 
words  in  his  edition:  but  they  are  in  that  of  the  author^ 
published  in  Bristol  in  1772,  by  W.  Pine,  and  now 
open  to  any  one  who  may  have  the  curiosity  to  inspect  it. 
Can  any  one  be  blind,  to  the  differences  resulting  from 
these  opposite  statements  in  addresses  to  convinced 
sinners;  and  to  persons  continuing  for  years — perhaps 
during  life-r-fluctuating  between  doubt  and  hope?  Very 
many  have  been  the  cases,  in  which  the  want  either  oT^ 
tlie  knowledge  or  of  the  application  of  the  distinction, 
|ias  been  the  cause  of  the  anguish  of  despair.  This  con- 
sideration is  rendered  the  more  important  by  the  cir- 
cumstance, that  according  to  the  account  of  the  con- 
ference held  in  1747  (Whitehead,  vol.  2,  page  222)  "q. 
great  majority  of  those  who  believe,"  and  who,  of  course 
have  received  an  assurance,  said  by  Mr.  Wesley  to  be 


61 

as  clear  as  the  blaze  of  the  sun  (Crowther  page  167) 
"fall  more  or  less  into  doubts  and  fears." 

What  signifies  the  distinction  taken  by  the  Farther  Re» 
plier  (page  40)  between  a  connexion  "immediate  as  to 
the  order  of  the  operations  of  grace,"  and  another  "in 
'theessential  nature  of  the  two  things?"  The  pjreat  dis- 
tinciion  here  taken,  is  as  applicable  to  cases  occurring  in 
life. 

His  difference  between  genus  and  species  (page  33 
note)  is  not  correctly  applied.  In  the  present  case,  the 
only  true  faith  is  in  the  promises  of  God  in  scripture, 
addressed  to  a  suitabable  state  of  mind.  The  distinction 
of  genus  and  species  is  an  excrescence  on  the  subject. 

As  to  the  Replier;  on  his  first  notice  of  the  Essay's 
mention  of  the  Methodists  (page  9)  he  quotes  it  saying 
— "There  are  none  who  lay  so  much  stress  on  it;"  that 
is,  on  the  position  in  its  plenitude,  and  he  adds  soon 
after — "They  glory  in  it." 

The  object  of  the  second  appendix,  was  to  show  an 
inconsistency,  in  relaxation  from  the  absolute  require- 
ment. The  Reply  admits  of  no  such  inconsistenc}';  and 
in  order  to  prove  that  there  was  none  in  Mr.  Wesley, 
discusses  his  letter  to  his  brother,  giving  a  maimed  re- 
presentation of  it,  denying  any  further  exception  than 
that  of  mere  possibility.  Even  this,  may  be  considered 
as  an  entering  wedge  into  the  original  system;  but  it  was 
contended  to  come  under,  the  adage— -"an  exception 
proves  the  rule."* 

*  After  all  this,  the  Farther  Replier  does  not  hesitate  to  say 
(page  43)  that  the  question  is  not,"  whether  Mr.  Wesley  or  tiie 
Methodists  have  been  consistent  in  tlieir  doctrir-e,  or  have  vacil- 
lated." 


Behold,  how  enlari^ed  the  ground  becomes  in  the 
Farther  Reply.  In  the  texts,  and  in  the  quotations 
from  the  homilies  and  from  modern  author  ,  were  the 
concession  made  of  their  applying"  to  the  position  gene- 
rally, they  would  still  be  irrelative  to  the  theory,  as  it 
stands  between  the  Methodists,  and  those  who  consent 
with  them  in  the  position,  but  do  not  affirm  it  of  every 
believer.  Again,  of  four  facts  produced  on  the  58th  and 
59th  pages  of  the  notes,  to  demonstrate  the  change  of 
mind  in  question,  the  Farther  Reply  takes  notice  of  one 
only;  and  that,  in  a  way  not  interfering  with  the  design 
for  which  it  was  produced.  To  crown  all,  Mr.  Wesley 
himself  is  brought  in,  conceding— "/jo^^ii^t/?/  some  may 
be  in  the  favour  of  God,  and  go  mourning  all  the  day 
long" — owing,  as  he  supposes,  to  disorder  or  to  igno- 
rance. It  has  not  escaped  observation,  that  where  Mr. 
Wesley  s?iys  possibli/,  the  word  is  stamped  with  italicks: 
apparently,  to  identify  it  with  the  barely  possible  case  in 
the  Reply.  The  possibility  of  Mr.  Wesley,  admitted  of 
an  indefinite  number;  and  related,  not  merely  to  the  ab- 
sence of  the  benefit  at  the  moment  of  conversion,  but 
to  the  continuance  of  the  privation  to  ^e  end  ^f  life. 

Independently  on  all  the  above,  concessions,  tho 
change  of  ground  might  have  been  rested  on  where  it  is 
said  (page  39)  "what  ground  is  meant?  If  it  be  this  de^- 
finition  of  faith"— meaning  the  very  definition  which 
gave  beginning  to  the  coptroversy — "The  answer  may 
be,  YES." 

In  reviewing  the  facts  above,  unnoticed  in  the  second 
pamphlet,  it  seemed.,  that  in  regard  to  the  letter  of  Mr. 


Wesley  to  his  brother,  the  passing  of  it  over  mi^ht  with 
much  more  reason  be  charged  with  injustice  to  the  me- 
mory of  the  former,  than  the  author's  omission  of  what 
he  thought  an  unimportant  context  of  the  same  person. 
He  intended  the  letter  to  be  a  revocation,  of  what  had 
.been  taught  by  him  for  30  years;  and  Dr.  Whitehead 
could  not  have  omitted  it,  without  desertion  of  the  duty 
of  a  biographer.  If,  during  the  present  controversy, 
any  person  should  read  of  the  incident,  only  as  it  stands 
in  the  Replies,  and  should  presume  them  to  be  correct; 
it  must  be  natural  for  him  to  imagine,  that  the  letter  was 
merely  of  the  nature  of  a  collegiate  exercise,  and  for  the 
display  of  ingenuity  in  argument;  that  Dr.  Whitehead 
had  indiscreetly  given  it  to  the  world,  as  the  exhibition 
of  deliberate  opinion;  and  that  the  present  author  had 
been  trifling  with  his  readers,  in  laying  stress  on  it.  In 
all  this,  the  result  of  the  Replies  would  have  been  coun- 
teracted, if  only  there  had  been  contained  in  the  first  of 
them;  or  if,  after  having  been  pointed  out  there  had 
been  acknowledged  in  the  second  of  them,  these  few- 
words  as  part  of  a  quoted  sentence — "We  tacked  to 
them" — the  truths  of  the  gospel — "a  proposition  which 
was  not  true." 

Section  17. — Of  authors ,  eked  on  the  other  side. 

It  is  intended  to  say  very  little  concerning  tliem,  in 
addition  to  what  has  been  said  of  a  few  of  the  number, 
in  the  preceding  pages.  The  object  at  present,  is  to  ap.^ 
peal  to  the  judgment  of  every  intelligent  reader,  in  proof 
of  the  impropriety  of  providing  so  much  food  for  the 
appetites  of  prejudiced  and  uninformed  minds;  to  many 


of  which  the  passages  will  appear  to  the  purpose,  merely 
from  the  circumstance  of  being  so  adduced:  although^ 
in  general,  they  have  no  bearing  on  the  position;  much 
less  on  the  profession  of  those,  who  are  a  subdivision 
of  the  persons  of  whom  the  position  had  been  predicated. 

To  illustrate  the  remark,  let  there  be  supposed  the 
two  following  cases  in  civil  life. 

A  principle,  deeply  interesting  to  the  just  claims  of 
the  executive  authority,  is  brought  into  question.  One 
man  writes  to  sustain  it.  Another  writes  on  the  contra- 
ry side;  and  to  enlist  the  partialities  of  his  readers,  loads 
his  pages  with  what  various  persons  have  correctly 
written  concerning  abuse  of  power* 

The  second  case:  A  principle  relative  to  the  liberty 
of  the  citizen,  and  his  security  against  oppression,  is 
brought  on  the  carpet.  One  man  writes  in  defence  of  it; 
and  another  writes  on  the  contrary  side;  but  enlarges 
his  book  with  matter  from  approved  writers,  on  the  mi- 
series produced  by  popular  licentiousness. 

The  appeal  may  be  made  to  ail  who  have  any  know 
ledge  of  the  world,  whether  in  the  first  of  the  cases,  the 
leading  writer  would  not  be  loaded  by  man^  with  the 
reproach  of  wishing  to  change  the  gTivernment  into  a 
monarchy-^ — perhaps  into  a  despotism?,  and  whether,  in 
the  second,  there  would  not  be  the  charge  of  a  desiga 
to  o\^erturn  law  and  government? 

The  opposite  effects  would  be  greatly  aided,  by  an 
artful  manaocment  of  italicks:  in  the  former  case,  invi- 
ting especial  r.otice  to  every  word  expressive  of  tyranny; 
and  in  the  laiter,  to  whatever  carried  in  its  hand  the 
brand  of  faction. 


There  is  an  analogy  to  the  stated  cases,  in  the  whok 
of  the  third  part  of  the  Farther  Reply;  and  the  unfair 
circumstance  attached  to  the  case,  may  be  traced  through 
all  the  three  parts  of  that  production:  so  that  many  a 
reader,  perceiving  the  stress  laid  on  every  word  savour- 
.  jng  of  spirituality  in  religion,  will  take  for  granted,  that 
this  is  the  very  thing  denied  in  the  Essay. 

The  author  hopes  he  has  shown,  of  some  eminent 
men  quoted  on  the  other  side,  that  they  have  been  great- 
ly misrepresented.  It  is  believed  that  the  same  is  true 
of  the  greater  number  of  those,  who  have  not  been  na- 
med in  this  review.  But  the  task  shall  be  limited  to 
two  of  them — bishop  Taylor  of  the  church  of  England, 
and  Dr.  Watts  of  the  dissenters. 

The  former,  in  his  treatise  entitled;  "Unum  Necessa- 
rium,  or  The  Doctrine  and  Practice  of  Repentance" 
[ch.  9,  sect.  6.  paragraph  69]  writes  thus — *' Unless 
God  be  pleased  to  draw  the  curtains  of  his  sanctuary, 
and  open  the  secrets  of  his  eternal  counsel,  there  is  no 
other  certainty  of  an  actual  pardon,  but  what  the  church 
does  minister,  and  what  can  be  prudently  derived  from 
ourselves.  For  to  every  such  curious  person  this  only 
is  to  be  said-  Do  you  believe  the  promises?  That  if  we 
confess  our  s>ins  and  forsake  them,  we  shall  be  pardoned 
and  saved.  If  so,  then  inquire,  whether  or  no  thou  dost 
perform  the  conditions  of  thy  pardon.  How  shall  I  know? 
Examine  thyself,  try  thy  own  spirit,  and  use  the  help 
of  a  holy  and  wise  guide.  If,  after  all,  thou  answerest, 
that  thou  canst  not  tell  whether  thy  heart  be  right,  and 
thy  duty  acceptable;  then  sit  down  and  hope  the  best 4 
and  walk  in  as  much  light  as  thou  hast,"  &c. 


66 

Before  the  quotation  from  Dr.  Watts  in  the  Farther 
Reply,  there  is  given  what  ou^ht  to  be  an  antidote  to  a 
false  impression  from  it — the  distinction  between  the 
extraordinary  and  the  ordinary  operations  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Nevertheless,  to  show  the  contrariety  of  the 
views  of  that  eminent  divine  to  the  position  now  the 
subject,  the  following  extract  is  presented  from  his  tenth 
discourse. 

*' We  may  infer  from  this   discourse  the  value  of  a 
solid  and  regular  knowledge  of  the  person  of  Christ, 
and  his  gospel.   It  lays  a  good  foundation  for  our  first 
faith,  and  afterwards,  for  its  growth  to  a  steady  assurance. 
What    is  the   reason  of  the  perpetual  doubts  and  de- 
spondencies of  some  christians,  tliat  have  made  a  long 
profession  of  the  gospel?    Whence  is  it,  that  they  are 
alarmed  at  every  turn  and  trouble,  as  though  all  were 
lost?  How  comes  it  to  pass,  that  these  hurries  of  mind 
should  return  so  often,  and  almost  overwhelm  some 
pious  souls,  that  walk  carefully  and  humbly  with  God? 
Is  it  not,  because  their  faith  has  been  too  much  built  on 
sudden  and  warm  aifections,  without  so  solid  a  ground 
of  regular  knowledge?  When  person^of  a  w^ker  mind 
have  felt  a  strong  and  divine  impression  from  some  par- 
ticular scripture,  or  from  some  bright' sentence  in  a  ser- 
mon which  had  displayed  the  grace  and  salvation  lil^ 
.  Christ,  they  have  made  this  inward  sensation  the  ground 
of  their  hope;  they  have  fed  still  upon  this  cordial,  and 
lived  upon  this  support.    And  whensoever  these  warm 
impressions  return,  they  trust  in  Christ  afresh,  and  re- 
joice sensibly  in  his  salvation;  but  thev  can  hardly  give 
©  rational  account  what  their  faith  is,  or  why  xhty  believe? 


and  when  these  extraordinary  supplies  fail  them,  they 
sink,  and  trembl*  and  die." 

There  may  have  been  remarked  additional  evidence 
of  the  surrendry  of  the  point,  begun  on  by  the  Replier 
— the  ne^cessity  of  a  direct  communication,  agreeably  to 
•the  original  doctrine  of  Mr.  Wesley.  The  present  au- 
thor supposed  much  to  have  been  gained  by  establish- 
ing subsequent  sayings  of  the  said  divine,  inconsistent 
with  the  stand  at  first  taken.  But  the  Farther  Replier 
has  at  last  got  so  far  from  it,  as  to  bring  in  a  long  list  of 
learned  divines,  not  one  of  v.hom  says  a  sentence  to  his 
original  purpose;  while  yet  he  pronounces  them  to  be 
*'many  of  the  greatest  and  best  of  men,  who  may  be 
ranked  among  the  brightest  ornaments  of  the  christian 
church.  "May  it  not  be  hoped,  that  during  the  progress  of 
this  controversy,  there  has  been  a  vacillation  of**^^"'^""'^ 
of  the  Replier,  from  the  views  with  whic'"  ^^  opened? 

Section  l%.--~Ofconversior^^^^^^^pt^s^' 
These  subjects  have  been  p^dlessly  brought  into  the 
controversy;  and  therefor-  »t  is  designed  to  be  more 
brief  on  them,  than  thf-'f  importance  would  otherwise 
require.  They  shor-^  be  passed  over;  were  it  not,  that 
the  author  is  desiK)us  of  repelling  some  injurious  state, 
ments;  and  of  not  appearing  to  shrink  from  the  odium  of 
holding  an  opinion,  w^ich  the  Farther  Replier,  without 
any  be^jring  on  tb^  matter  in  han^l,  seems  solicitous  to 
draw  from  him. 

In  the  Reply  [page  8]  there  was  introduced  a  pas- 
sage  from  Dr.  Buchanan,  in  favour  of  spiritual  conver- 
sion, and  citing  Dr,  Paley  in  its  support.  The  first  part 
of  the  passage  from  Paley,  went  to  the  same  point.  lit 


68 

seemed  enough  to  show  [notes  page  49]  that  the  Essay 
had  not  denied  it.  But  now,  the  Farther  Replier  comes 
with  the  residue  of  the  passage  from  Paley,  which  had 
been  considered  by  .the  author  as  a  meer  circumstance; 
and  which,  as  well  as  the  other,  he  had  never  thought  of 
denying — that  a  man  cannot  stop  short  in  a  course  of  sin, 
and  turn  to  God,  without  being  sensible  of  it,  nor  with- 
out remembering  the  process  of  mind  issuing  in  the 
change.  In  the  extract  from  Dr.  Buchanan,  there  is  no- 
thing giving  the  idea,  that  this  was  the  sentimtnt  for 
which,  principally,  the  passage  of  Paley  was  intro- 
duced.* 

The  question  of  conversion  being  thus  obtruded,  the 
Fai-Jier  Replier  [page  11]  has  resorted  to  printed  lec- 
tures o.  xhQ  catechism  by  the  present  author;  who  is 
thought  to  inye  laid  in  them  a  ground  for  conclusions, 
which  may  be  c^sj^jered  as  they  regard  either  adults  or 
jinfants. 

In  regard  to  adults,  thv  author  finds  himself  under  the 
necessity  of  repeating  the  du^hration  in,  the  Essay,  of 
his  never  having  imagined  of  a^^  of  them,  be^g  not  fit 
yecipients,  that  they  were  convertu]  dr'regentraied,  by 
undergoing  the  ceremony  of  baptism.  But  if,  on  account 
of  what  ought  to  be,  and  of  the  agreement  between  the 

*  The  introduction  of  the  passage  ft^m  Buchanan,  warranted 
the  author  to  suppose,  that  the  conversion  oi  sinners,  in  ti^e  point 
of  ivs  being  seated  in  the  heart  was  represented  as  having  been 
denied.  There  being  cause  of  the  supposition,  he  had  a  right  to 
convey  the  idea  entertained  of  the  charge,  eitlier  under  the  ex- 
pression ot  "dispensing"  with  the  subject,  or  under  that  of  "ma- 
king light"  of  it.  Both  of  them  apply;  without  any  srich  material 
difference  of  sense  as  to  th$;  matter  in  hand, as  is  imagined  on  the 
other  sidco 


68 

sign  and  the  thing  signified,  the  scriptures  and  the 
church  connect  the  two;  there  can  be  no  impropriety,  in 
his  doing  of  the  same.  See  Acts  22,  16.  Rom.  6.  3,  4, 
1  Cor.  12.  13.  Gal  3.  27.  Col  2.  12,*  Tit.  3.  5.  1  Pet, 
3.  21.  There  is  no  difficulty,  arising  out  of  the  case  of 
a  baptized  hypocrite,  afterwards  becoming  a  sincere 
convert.  The  grace  designed  for  the  sincere  only,  has 
been  signed  and  sealed  to  him  eventually  and  on  condi- 
tion, but  in  a  Vv^ay  the  most  hkely  to  aggravate  his  con- 
demnation. Justification  may  be  possessed,  before  the 
baptismal  act.  Still,  in  the  eye  of  man,  and  in  that  of 
God  independently  on  good  desire,  the  state  is  inchoate, 
and  the  church  does  not  recognise  it,  until  the  concki» 
ding  act.f 

*  The  Farther  Replier,  denies  the  universality  of  the  applica-. 
tion  of  this  text  to  baptism.  It  would  be  rash  to  affirm,  sf.rictlj 
speaking,  that  there  are  no  dissentients.  But  of  the  four  mention-, 
ed,  three  have  been  consulteil-— the  other  being  not  at  hand — and 
are  found  noticing  the  above  connexion:  without— wliat  was  no^ 
meant — the  severing  of  baptism  from  the  "putting  off' the  bod j 
of  the  sins  of  the  flesh;"  this  being  the  thing  intended  to  be  sign!* 
fied  by  the  sign  The  construings  are  sufficient  for  what  -as  the 
object  in  the  lectures — to  show  the  agreement  between  circum- 
cision and  baptism:  of  course,  the  extension  as  much  of  the  one 
of  them  as  of  the  other,  to  infants;  and  further,  their  not  remain- 
ing, subsequently  to  their  admission  to  the  christian  covenant, 
under  the  condemning  eftects  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 

t  The  Farther  Replier  [page  88]  dwells  at  considerable  length 
on  the  uncertainty  as  to  the  point  of  time,  when,  on  the  princi^ 
pies  of  the  author,  a  believer  may  begin  to  account  liimself  in  a 
safe  state.  There  is  much  more  certainty  in  this  matter,  on  tli© 
■ground  taken  in  the  Essay  over  the  first  two  pages  of  it,  than  on 
that  of  the  Replier  to  it,  after  desertion  of  the  necessity  of  a  di- 
vine communication  ou  the  first  act  of  faith.    Although  the  sub- 


70 

It  is  in  regard  to  the  other  particular,  that  the  author 
foresees  an  irreconcilable  clifFerenc-  between  his  theory 
and  that  of  his  opponent.  The  former  does  not  hesitate  to 
avow  the  belief,  that  of  those  who-  are  baptized  in  in- 
fancy, no  other  conversion  is  ever  afterwards  required, 
if,  as  they  grow  up,  they  are  restrained  from  a  state  or 
life  of  sin.  Instead  of  being  inferred,  it  might  have  been 
made  a  charge  from  the  first  dissertation  attached  to  the 
lectures.  But  in  this  case,  it  would  have  been  incum- 
bent to  repel  the  same  sentiment,  as  given  in  the  passage 
quoted  from  Paley,  with  its  enlargement  in  the  note? 
|]page  49]  and  from  Mr.  Wesley,  in  the  same  notes 
(page  59  and  60)  from  his  journal  (ibid.)  and  from  Mr, 
Fletcher  (ibid. )  40  years  afterwards,  under  Mr,  Wesley's 
eye.  If  the  last  mentioned  did  not  mean  what  he  said  of 
baptism,  it  makes  no  difference;  because  infants,  being 
justified,  as  he  aflirms  them  to  be,  must  remain  so,  until 
apostatising  to  a  state  or  life  of  sin.  The  Farther  Re- 
plier  may  take  his  choice  of  the  words.*  He  has  noticed 

ject  is  confessed  to  have  been  rested  at  the  nineteenth  page  of  the 
Essay  on  the  assurances  of  tlie  gospel  and  present  exercises  of 
the  mind,  the  ointment  is  spoiled  by  the  dea^-fly  of  tlie  requi- 
sition, that  the  reality  of  those  graces  must, be  known  by  the  ef- 
fects of  a  godly,  righteous  and  sober  life.  Is'  it  possible  the  Far- 
ther Replier  should  be  ignorant,  that  in  this  particular,  as  in  va- 
rious other  ways,  a  man  may  not  know  what  manner  of  spirit  he 
is  of? 

The  Farther  Replier  has  given  a  specimen  of  his  logick — page 
18 — still  confounding  "cause"  with  "evidence,"  as  in  the  Reply. 
With  this  exception,  his  syllogism  may  be  agreed  to:  it  being  un- 
derstood, that  the  concurrence  of  the  state  of  mind  with  the  pro- 
mises of  God,  in  an  ordinance  of  his  appointment,  is  the  evidence 
in  question. 

*  He    [page    30    note]     sarcastically     ascribes    tlic  im^ 


that  the  author,  having  used  the  former  word  in  his  lec- 
tures, takes  the  latter  in  his  notes.  In  approved  dictiona* 
ries,  one  of  the  senses  given  to  "Ufe,"  is  "die  present 
istate  or  condition  of  a  person."  If  a  man  be  in  a  state 
of  disregard  of  God,  is  notthis  ahfe  of  sin?  There  was 
n6  use  in  the  criticism,  unless  it  were  to  charge  theau- 
tlior  with  sinking  the  christian  state  into  a  prudential 
regulating  of  the  exteriour.* 

But  it  is  noticed,  that  in  the  lecture,  the  position  is 
made,  of  there  being  no  new  power  of  the  mind,  be- 
stowed in  baptism  on  iUe  infant.  Are  there  any,  on  the 
beiieving  adult?  Does  not  the  difference  between  his 
former  and  his  subsequent  state  consist  in  contrariety  of 
disorder  and  of  good  government,  in  the  exercise  of  his 
natural  powers?  Let  there  be  taken  the  appetites  of 
hunger  and  thirst:  what  an  immensity  of  vice,  is  the  re- 
sult of  disorder  in  them!  And  yet,  where  is  the  difference 
between  the  saint  and  the  sinner,  except  that  the  former 
is  under  the  control  of  a  supernatural  principle,  keeping 
those  appetites  in  subjection?  Let  the  distinction  be 
transferred  to  all  the  bodily  and  to  all  the  mental  powerSj 
and  the  oonclusion  will  be  the  same. 

derstanciing  of  what  Mr.  Fletcher  says  of  baptism,  to  the  law 
of  association.  The  solution  is  admitted:  and  the  associating 
circumstance,  is  declared  to  be  Mr.  Fletcher's  having  been  in  the 
habitual  use — which  is  supposed  to  have  been  the  case — of  the 
office  for  infant  baptism  in  the  book  of  Common  Prayer. 

*  In  making  a  man  an  offender  for  a  word,  there  is  a  right  to 
expect,  that  the  objector  should  understand  it.  In  conversation  and 
in  books,  there  are  often  included  both  heart  and  action  under 
the  term — "the  christian  life."  It  is  even  the  name  of  a  large 
work,  formerly  much  read  by  religious  people,  and  certaini  y  coio- 
prehending  both  of  the  subjects. 


It  is  objected,  that  the  church  of  the  author  required 
faith  as  the  instrument  of  justification.  The  same  church, 
in  the  homily  quoted  by  Mr.  Wesley,  and  in  the  part 
quoted  (the  third)  contemplates  baptised  and  justified 
infants,  as  the  same.  She  does  not  limit  the  latter  word, 
although  it  is  often  applicable,  to  a  precise  point  of  time. 
It  would  be  impossible  to  show,  at  what  moment  Abra- 
ham began  to  be  justified.  For  although  we  kr.ovv  he 
was  so,  when  he    "offered  Isaac  his  son  en  the  altar" 
(James  2.  21. )  and  when  another  of  his  acts  was  "impu- 
ted unto  him  for  righteousness"  (Rom.  4.  3  )  it  hinders 
not  his  having  been  in  a  justified  state,  when  at  the  call 
of  God,  he   "went  out"  from  his  own  country,  "not 
knowing  whither  he  went."  [Heb.  11.  8.]    There  are 
many  who  revolt  at  the  bearing  of  this  subject  on  the; 
condition  of  baptised  infants:  but  they  ought  to    be 
aware,  of  the  door  they  thus  open  to  the  errour  of  exclu- 
ding infants  from  baptism.    It  is  difficult  to  perceive, 
how  the  admission  of  them  can  be  defended  on  any  other 
ground. 

The  Farther  Replier,  has  made  a  most  unwarrantable 
use  of  that  part  of  thr  first  lecture,  which  int  «prets  the 
baptismal  promise:  putting  between  inverted  commas, 
and  commenting  as  if  one  subject',  on  two  distinct 
branches  of  the  promise,  stated  to  have  been  introduced 
into  the  primitive  church  at  difterent  periods  of  time. 
In  the  lecture,  there  is  occupied  more  than  a  page,  in 
explaining  the  expression— "the  devil  and  all  his 
works."  Then  follows  the  expression — **the  pomps 
and  vanities  of  this  wicked  world:"  but  what  is  said  of 
this,  is  interpreted  in  the  Farther  Reply,  of  the  two  ub- 
jccts  alike.  The  passage  of  that  work  ought  to  hav^ 


73 

looked  back  to  the  exposition  of  the  precedent  expres- 
sion, and  forward  to  the  exposition  of  anotiier — "all 
the  sinful  kists  of  the  flesh."  This  is  not  said  with  the 
view  of  evading  the  insinuation  made  in  the  form  of  put- 
ting a  question,  of  countenancing  improper  customs  of 
the  world,  not  coming  within  the  limits  ''of  impiety, 
cruelty  and  sensuality,"  The  words,  as  the  connexion 
shows,  are  applied  to  the  second  of  the  three  branches 
of  the  promise.  And  yet,  if  under  the  head  of  cruelty- 
there  be  understood,  as  there  may  be,  every  unjust  act, 
the  words  comprehend  the  whole.  When  an  apostle 
has  summed  up  the  positive  branches  of  duty,  under  the 
heads  of  "living  godly,  righteously  and  soberly  in  this 
present  world;"  the  opposite  may  be  considered  as  for- 
bidden in  sufficient  extent,  in  the  terms  above  mention- 
ed: notwithstanding  their  being  put  in  italicks;  to  show 
the  low  staiidard  of  morals,  supposed  to  he  advocated  by 
the  author. 

Independently  on  the  injustice  done  to  himself  in  this 
particular,  he  is  apprehensive  of  the  danger  of  there  be- 
ing  some  persons,  who  would  welcome  his  theory  on 
that  account;  and  perhaps  allow  of  some  little  weight  in 
his  name,  towards  the  sanctioning  of  it.  If  there  should 
be  any  such  persons  among  his  readers,  he  now  decla^^es 
to  them,  that  his  mind  is  far  different  from  the  represen- 
tation which  has  been  made  of  it  in  the  two  Replies.  He 
knows  of  no  acceptable  worship,  besides  chat  which  is 
*'in  spirit  and  in  truth; "and  of  no  morali.y,  coniing  with- 
in the  covenant  conditions  of  the  gospel,  besides  that 
answerable  to  the  "holiness  of  hrart,  without  which  no 
mm  shall  see  the  Lord/' 


AlSr  APPENDIX, 

On  the  notice  of  the  Controversyi  in  the  Quarterli/ 
Review,  by  the  Rev,  E,  S,  Ely,  A.  M.  {now  D.  D.) 
The  Kev,  Reviewer  having  unequivocally  declared, 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Essay  is  the  same  with  that  of  him- 
self and  his  church;  there  would  not  seem  a  call  for  any 
comments,  were  it  not  that  he  good  naturedly  proclaims 
*'a  little  controversy"  with  the  Essayist,  relative  to  the 
representation  made  of  the  opinion  of  Calvin;  courteous- 
Jy  inviting  information  on  that  point. 

The  differing  from  that  very  eminent  person,  cannot 
be  a  source  of  pleasure  to  the  author.  On  the  contrary, 
it  would  gratify  him  to  be  convinced  of  his  mistake,  if 
|ie  have  incurred  any.  As  yet,  however,  he  sees  no 
cause  to  change  his  mind:  for  on  again  consulting  the 
Institutions,  he  thinks  that  the  principle  in  ques- 
tion may  be  found,  where  the  Reviewer  looked  for  it  in 
vain,  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  third  book. 

The  parties  are  agreed  in  the  fact,  lamented  by  the  Re- 
viewer, that  Calvin  states  assurance  as  of  the  e^ence  of 
fsdth.  Accordingly, thelittle  controversyTs brought  within 
a  little  compass.  It  is,  \vhether,  according  to  Calvin,  assu- 
rance be  through  the  medium  of  the  word,  applied  ge- 
nerally to  believers  by  the  ordinary  operations  of  the 
spirit;  or  it  b^  by  direqt  comqiiinication,  addressed  to 
each  individual,  for  him  or  her  self. 

The  author  does  not  undertake  to  inform  the  reviewer 
of  any  passage,in  whicV  it  is  said— r"  An  assurance  of  par- 
don is  given  to  an  indivi^Mal,  by  a  direct  communication 
of  the  holy  spirit,  by  an  inward  suggestion  of  something 


75 

not  recorded  in  the  bible.'*  The  matter  thought  to  be 
seen  in  the  work  of  the  reformer,  is  his  contemplating 
of  an  assurance  which  may  exist  independently  on  any 
particular  passage  in  the  bible,  applied  concurrently 
with  the  consciousness  of  state  of  heart,  to  the  indivi- 
•  dual  case.  That  "faith  is  communicated  through  the 
appointed  means  of  grace;  so  that  we  come  by  this  faith 
ful'  of  assurance,  by  the  reading,  hearing,  and  contem- 
plating of  the  gospel,"  would  no  more  have  been  con- 
tradicted by  Mr.  Wesley,  tban  by  Calvin.  The  latter, 
begins  to  open  his  mind  on  that  point,  in  his  6th  section., 
Butj  that  there  is  any  place  in  the  chapter^  which  founds 
the  assurance  pleaded  for  on  a  comparison  of  the  state 
of  the  believer  with  the  terms  required  in  the  gospel — 
as  in  the  test  oi  Usher — is  what  the  author  cannot  disco- 
ver. The  want  of  something  to  this  effect,  seems  to  im- 
ply the  resolving  of  the  assurance  into  divine  and  direct 
communication. 

At  the  end  of  the  7th  section,  there  is  a  definition  of 
faith;  which,  seen  under  the  distinction  taken  above, 
may  be  made  to  square  with  the  one  or  the  other  of  the 
theories  eompared.  Before  the  opening  of  the  terms  of 
the  definition,  there  are  preliminary  observations:  among 
which,  there  are  some  which  may  be  made  to  harmo- 
nize with  the  exceptionable  position,  but  it  is  conceived 
— not  with  its  opposite.  One  of  the  places  referred  to,  is 
where  it  is  said  (Section  11)  "the  Lord  to  render  the 
guilty  of  the  reprobate  tnore  manifest  and  inexcusable, 
insinuates  himself  into  their  minds,  so  far  as  his  gond- 
nesscan  be  enjoyed  without  the  spirit  of  adoption."  It 
Would  seem  inadmissible,  in  relation  to  the  reformer, 
that  he  contemplated  the  Holy  Spirit's  applying  of  the 


76 

promises  of  scripture,  to  states  of  mirid  to  which  thtf 
are  not  suited,  and  for  which  they  were  not  designed^ 
Direct  insinuation,  may  be  thought  to  interfere  less 
with  the  constituted  economy  of  the  gospel,  in  its  great  ' 
end  of  application  to  the  faithful;  although,  as  well  in  the 
one  line  as  in  the  other,  in  contrariety  to  the  views  here 
entertained  of  the  dispensation  of  grace. 

If,  from  the  reprobate,  we  pass  to  what  is  said  of  the 
elect  in  the  19th  section;  all  that  we  read  of  contempla- 
ting the  divine  face,  placid  and  serene,  as  the  immediate 
eifect  of  faith;  and  of  arriving,  afterwards^  at  a  nearer, 
more  certain,  and  familiar  view;  looks  much  like  an  im- 
mediate manifestation,  and  not  like  that  which  is  through 
the  medium  of  the  word.  Very  different  from  Calvin's 
view  of  the  Deity,  was  that  of  St.  Paul  in  1  Cor  13.  18. 
This  w^as  in  the  instituted  economy  of  the  gospel,  re- 
presented by  the  metaphor  of  a  glass.  There  is  nothing 
like  it  in  the  other. 

It  may  be  worth  the  while  of  the  reviewer,  to  con- 
bider  the  section  but  one  before.  It  describes  the  fluc- 
tuating states  of  mind  incidental  to  believers,,  in  terms  so 
very  like  to  those  of  the  advocates  of  direct  assurance, 
as  renders  it  difficult  to  distinguish  b'etween  him  and 
them:  and  with  both,  they  are  withouj.  any  visible  de- 
pendence on  the  intellectual  faculty.  That  doubts  and  , 
fears  may,  with  good  cause,  arise  in  the  believing  mind, 
is  evident.  But  to  render  them  worthy  of  attention, 
there  should  be  the  correspondent  sense  of  delinquency. 
The  feelings  described  by  Calvin,  like  those  of  Mr; 
Wesley,  seem  to  be  much  dependent  on  animal  organi- 
zation: the  effects  of  which  so  mingle  with  the  conscious- 
ness of  unfaithiulness,  as  to  occasion  the  suspicion  of 


there  never  having  been  the  light,  compared  by  the  one 
of  those  divines  to  the  blaze  of  the  sun;  and  by  the 
otherof  them,  to  the  contemplating  of  the  divine  face 
placid  and  serene.  The  difference  between  them  is,  that 
according  to  the  theory  of  Calvin,  there  can  be  no  such 
loss  of  the  benefit,  as  is  entire  and  final;  and  that  in  the 
opinion  of  Mr.  Wesley,  there  may  be  both. 

There  is  no  desire  of  establishing  the  above  as  the  opi- 
nion of  Calvin.  It  was  incidentally  introduced  in  the 
Essay,  as  a  matter  supposed  not  to  be  denied.  Accord- 
ingly, the  notice  of  the  subject  is  now  dismissed,  unless 
in  ^  event  of  conviction  of  errour:  in  which  case, 
there  would  be  propriety  in  communicating  the  change* 
of  mind  to  the  reviewer. 

The  author,  has  no  fault  to  find  with  the  exhibition  of 
his  opinions  in  the  review;  except,  that  where  it  is  said 
[page  11]  on  the  subject  of  assurance — "which  is  not 
given  to  all  but  enjoyed  by  some,"  he  wishes  it  had 
been — "which  is  attainable  but  not  possessed  by  all." 

In  relation  to  instances  of  injurious  construction  in  the 
Reply;  it  was  a  confirmation  of  the  opinion,  that  no 
ground  had  even  inadvertently  been  laid  for  them  in  the 
Essay;  to  find  the  s?.m.e  sentiment  in  the  impartial  deci- 
sions of  the  reviewer. 

The  author  is  thought  [page  1 3]  to  have  used  an  unphi- 
losophical,  although  common  expression,  concerning  ths 
state  of  mind  of  an  individual,  in  saying,  that  it  "is  a  sub- 
ject of  consciousness:"  for,  "consciousness  can  have 
no  other,  than  a  present  operation."  In  the  case  of  a  man, 
labouring  at  this  moment  under  conviction  of  sins  com- 
mitted— say  a  year  ago — and  sincerely  repenting  of 
them;  is  it  possible,  that  his  consciousness  of  the  preser"^ 


78 

state  of  his  mind  can  be  altogether  independent  on  his 
recollection  of  the  past?  Mr.  Locke  [book  2  ch.  27. 
section  16  and  17]  makes  the  idea  of  self,  dependent  on 
consciousness,  connecting  the  past  with  the  present. 

But  stress  is  laid  on  the  contrariety  of  the  expresssion 
to  "modern  mental  philosophy."  Perhaps  there  is  no  mo- 
dern more  eminent  in  the  department,  than  the  late  Dr. 
Reid  of  Edinburgh.  This  profound  and  luminous 
writer  [Essay  3.  ch.  6]  dissents  from  the  theory  of  Mn 
Locke,  as  did  another  eminent  metaphysician  before 
him-^bishop  Butler.  Dr.  Reid  distinguishes  between 
recollection  and  consciousness;  and  between  wha^on- 
stitutes  identity,  and  the  evidence  of  it  to  the  mind:  the 
confounding  of  which,  he  takes  to  have  been  the  errour 
of  Mr.  Locke.  But  although  recollection  and  conscious- 
ness are  distinct  acts  of  the  mind  does,  Dr.  Reid  deny, 
that  the  subject  of  the  one  may  be  feelings,  produced  by 
the  exercise  of  the  other  on  past  transactions?  There  is 
nothing  to  this  effect;  or  showing,  that  we  may  not  pro- 
perly speak  of  being  conscious  of  present  penitence,  al- 
though  it  be  for  sins  formerly  committed.  For  any  thing 
here  known,  there  may  be  modern  i)hilosopiier3,  al- 
though it  is  supposed  that  they  would  not  be  respected 
by  the  reviewer,  treading  in  some  such^-rack  in  relation 
to  the  mind,  as  that  of  oneofMoliere's  doctors  in  relation 
lo  the  body;  who  conceded  that  the  heart  was  formerly 
on  the  left  side,  but  contended  that  modern  anatomy  had 
placed  it  on  the  right. 

Docs  it  not  border  on  the  hypercritical,  when  the  re- 
view [page  8]  quoting  the  Essay  as  saying,  that  the 
assurances  in  the  gospel  of  the  acceptance  of  fa^th  and 
•  epcn.tance  arc  unequivocal,  wishes  it  to  have  been  la- 


79 

ther  said  of  persons  who  possess  those  graces?  Use  is  the 
law  of  language.  If  a  son,  having  lived  in  disobedience 
to  his  father,  have  become  penitent,  and  complied 
with  the  conditions  of  forgiveness,  should  we  hesitate 
to  say,  that  the  father  had  accepted  of  his  sorrow  for  the 
past,  and  of  his  promises  for  the  future?  And  would  not 
the  acceptance  of  his  person  be  understood? 

The  Review  [page  20]  has  given  a  candid  and  true 
construction,of  the  words  introducing  a  quotation  from 
Dr.  Witherspoon.  "Us"  for  "up,"  was  a  typographical 
errour;  and,  as  conjectured,  was  not  in  the  original 
publication. 

Although  the  author  has  no  personal  concern  in  the 
two  concluding  pages  of  the  review  cf  the  two  pamphlets; 
he  hopes,  there  will  be  no  impropriety  in  noticing  them. 
They  present  a  pinching  difficulty,  intended  of  the  theory 
of  the  Replier,  in  its  contrariety  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
final  perseverance  of  the  saints.  It  is  not  here  wished, 
to  convert  him  to  the  belief  of  that  doctrine:  but  it  is 
not  perceived  in  what  way  he  can  resist  it,  and  retain  his 
theory  of  a  direct  communication.  The  author  distinct- 
ly recollects,  that  in  the  discourse  mentioned  in  the  pre- 
ceding pubhcation  [page  50]  as  listened  to  in  1767, 
the  respectable  preacher  laid  stress  on  the  said  doctrine; 
pot  as  a  matter  to  be  then  proved,  but  as  the  acknow- 
Uged  doctrine  of  the  church  in  which  he  stood. 


CONTENTS. 


Preface 
Section 


page  3 
7 


1.  Of  the  title  of  the  Essay, 

£.  Of  the  state  of  the  question,            ...  8 

3.  Of  the  test  of  Archbishop  Usher,            -            -  14 

4.  Of  the  Essayist's  1st  objectioH  to  the  position,  17 

5.  Of  the  2nd  object  on,            -             -             -  18 

6.  Of  the  3rd  -  bjection,         -             -             -  21 

7.  Of  the  4th  objection,            -             -        -  23 

8.  Of  the  5th  objection,         -             -               -  31 
;               9.  Of  the  6th  objection,             -               -             -  lb. 

10.  Of  the  7th  objection,        ...  32 

11.  Of  the  8th  objection,             -            -              -  40 

12.  Of  the  9th  objection,         .             -             .  43 

13.  Of  the  10th  objection,            -            -            "•  lb. 

14.  Of  the  other  sup  ;osed  communications  compared 

with  that  in  question,             -             -             -  46 

15.  Of  the  dislocated  passage  in  the  Essay           -  49 

16.  Of  the  Methodists,  as  brought  under  notice  by  a 

dislocated  passage  in  the  Essay,        -        -  51 

17.  Of  Mr.  Wesley          ...          .        .  54 

18.  Of  authors  cited  on  the  other  side,        -        -  63 

19.  Of  conversion  and  baptism,        *          ,"          '  ^^' 
Appendix.        -           -        -        -        -         -       '  ^"'  "^^ 


ERRATA.        . 

Page    34  note:  end  of  line  4— for  "of"  read  "to." 
40— line  15,  for  "nim"  read  "him." 

«•    line  from  bottom  2,  for  "ascention"  read  "ascension,.' 
43    line  from  the  bottom  2,  for  '  Repler"  read  Replier." 
45    note:  end  ofline  2,  for  "apology"  read  "confession.'^ 

"    last  line  insert  "to." 
49   line  6,  for  "14"  "15." 

"     line  from  bottom  5,  for  "change"  read  "charge." 
51    line  from  bottom  12,  for  "15"  read  "16," 
54    line  1,  for  "16"    "17 '\ 


DATE  DUE 


%v. 


'^ 


^  -  *« 


w, 


■Ma 


h^^'^'^'A 


